Post by: andersonjk4 on January 09, 2018, 10:12:22 AM
After reading a few of the threads on here regarding the WDFW's hiring of the conflict resolution consultant and reading mostly negative comments I decided I would do some research and try to gather more information on the situation. My thinking was "If this is really as bad as everyone was/is making is seem then we (hunters) need to do something to change this". I started by going back and reading the paper she published with the WDFW: People and Wolves in Washington: Stakeholder Conflict Assessment and Recommendations for Conflict Transformation
(https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01719/wdfw01719.pdf (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01719/wdfw01719.pdf))
In this paper I discovered that the author portray's hunter's as an important stakeholder in the wolf recovery debate and gives, in my opinion, a very accurate assessment of the sentiments of hunters towards wolves, wolf recovery and the WDFW handling of wolves in general. I then went to the Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, the organization she represents, website. There I found a strong message of coexisting and coming together for the good of wildlife. What I didn't find was any mention of or indication that the voice of hunters was part of their collaborative. This is where I decided I needed to take some action and not just get onto the forum and rant and rave. I decided to reach out to Francine Madden and let her know that I thought were portrayal of hunters in her paper was fair, but in order to bring in the support of the hunting community I urged her to consider adding a legitimate hunting presence to her organization's committees. I fully expected a canned "thank you for your email and your comments will be considered" type of email in response and for her to not really take it seriously. Instead I received a very thoughtful and thorough response almost immediately. I will share my email and her response below. Out of courtesy, I made sure she was ok with me sharing our conversation and she was more than accepting of me wanting to share it.
My intent in sharing this and starting this thread is not to push any wolf related agenda or try and convince anyone of any wolf related issues. (I have not stated mine or any other wolf related opinions in this thread or my conversation with Francine for a reason). The only agenda I am pushing here is to get the voice of the hunter heard and try and get us a seat at the table. My intent is to try and show hunters that our voice can be heard if we are willing to put forth the effort. That being said Francine is looking for continued input from the hunting community and this may end up being a good place for constructive discussion regarding the next phase of the wolf recovery plan development.
My original email:
Hello,
I have been following the work you have been involved in with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding wolf-human conflict resolution. I read your paper People and Wolves in Washington: Stakeholder Conflict Assessment and Recommendations for Conflict Transformation, and appreciate your consideration of all user groups and how their stake in the issue. Within this document, I feel you have portrayed a fair assessment of hunters and our sentiment toward wolves and wolf-human conflict. However, I have seen a high level of distrust and negative sentiment from the hunting community toward you and your organization. This stems mainly from the affiliations of a majority of the committee members you list on your website. Many of these affiliations have a reputation for being staunch anti-hunting or at least not pro hunting. You stress coexistence on your website and I feel from reading your work that you understand the stake hunters have in conflict resolution and in wildlife conservation in general. I would urge you to consider recruiting some intelligent individuals from the hunting community to join your committees. This would go A LONG WAYS in giving your organization some credibility within the hunting community. This, and I think you would find a majority of hunters share the same level of respect and compassion toward wild animals as the other members of your committee. Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Jake Anderson
Washington Resident and Hunter
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 09, 2018, 10:14:42 AM
Hi Jake,
First of all, I can not thank you enough for reaching out directly and sharing these thoughts, concerns and suggestions with me. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness, kindness, and direct communication about these issues.
Second, I completely agree with you that hunters are an incredibly valuable and equally committed member of the conservation community -- In fact, conservation would not be half of what it is today without the hard work, diverse contributions and important role of hunters play, not just nationally but globally as well -- AND I completely agree with you that having a balanced board/committee is critical to our credibility and how we are perceived - by any group/community. You articulated that incredibly well and I am humbled by your kindness and your accuracy.
Please be rest assured that we have been aware of this current imbalance, that our website is actually woefully out of date by years (currently being re-developed, but it's still too long overdue), and most importantly, we also are very acutely aware that we have not yet replaced our hunter representative after he retired. And your email is exceptionally timely as this exact issue came up at our December board of directors meeting. It is one of the top items on our organizational "to do" list for 2018...
So, thank you. While these are issues we are aware of, it is always helpful and appreciated for someone to reach out and give us a friendly reminder of these issues, of how we are being perceived and how an action -- or in this case an inaction or delayed action on our part -- can compromise our credibility or have an unintended negative effect among members of your community.
Please also accept my apologies on all accounts. Especially for any unintended negative impacts in your community. I would also like to ask your advice: As my organization enters it's final year of engagement on the wolf issue, do you have any suggestions or recommendations for me on how to repair any damage in the short term or engage with the hunting community, especially as we enter into a discussion about post-recovery planning? Is there anything I can do in my work in WA to rebuild the trust in the short term, recognizing that the recruitment process we are currently engaged in to get back to our board balance will likely extend beyond our WA timeline. I have both ears open if you have any suggestions for me.
Thank you, Jake. I wish you and yours a happy new year!
Francine
Post by: Curly on January 09, 2018, 10:25:40 AM
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 09, 2018, 10:29:45 AM
Francine
Thank you for your quick and thorough reply. It is reassuring to me personally to hear that giving the voice of hunters a seat at the table in these important wildlife matters is a top priority of your organization. As far as short term advice goes, I think making it clear to hunters that our voice is heard and our stake in wildlife conservation is being considered would go a long way. People who "google" your organization see no links to the hunting community (aside from many state fish and wildlife agencies) and many affiliations with organizations regarded as anti-hunting. Establishing a public list of "stakeholders", which includes hunters, would a first step and something to be considered when creating your new website. But ultimately bringing the voice of the hunter to the table will be the biggest and most legitimate thing I can think of.
Online forums seem to be a large gathering place for many hunters. Establishing a profile and presence within an online forum can be a great way to gauge hunter's feelings on topics and get direct feedback. Forums tend to attract a lot of extreme views, but if those are filtered out some constructive information can be had. This could be especially helpful in gathering information on the ongoing wolf recovery planning. One great place to start for this would be http://hunting-washington.com. Other forms of social media (instagram, facebook, etc.) would obviously reach hunters as well.
Would you mind me sharing your previous email response on the above mentioned hunting forum? I could use this as a starting point in gathering some useful insights for you and/or the WDFW as wolf recovery planning discussions continue.
As you expand your organization and continue your work outside of WA, i would suggest finding a representative from the hunting community who shares the same passion for wildlife conservation, and there are many. Many of the big name conservation organizations (Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, RMEF, etc) are full of intelligent individuals who would be great ambassadors for the hunting community.
I acknowledge hunters have not been the most engaged user group in the past. However, I feel this is changing and many now see the importance of having our voices heard (hence the reason I reached out to you).
Thank you again for your time. Your responsiveness and willingness to listen is greatly appreciated.
Jake
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 09, 2018, 10:31:44 AM
Good morning, Jake!
I greatly appreciate your suggestions for both short/interim and longer term actions, as well as your insight and reflection that you feel the hunting community has changed in recent years with respect to its willingness to engage and share its voice more now. Your insights gave me an "Aha!" moment as I read it, as it enhanced and validated some of my own "then and now" experiences and gives me renewed encouragement as we go forward with our board development. I can't thank you enough!
Yes, please feel free to share my original email. And thank you for asking.
I will also follow up on your recommendations (board development, re-engaging and formalizing the voice of hunters in our organization, website changes, etc), as you suggest. I will note that the only recommendation I'm reluctant to follow-up on -- but I promise to give it further thought and consideration -- is engaging with individuals or communities, of any user group, on social media forums. As both an organization and a third party neutral, I barely engage to any depth on email (yours is a happy exception), and I/we tend not to engage at all on social media. Why? Well, besides my own old fashioned nature, face-to face just has so much more creativity, power and value for constructive, rich dialogue, input and feedback. And so much of change is about the relationships we create, the conflicts we reconcile, and can only do that well, in my opinion, through face-to-face engagement. Yes, this is my opinion, but for 20+ years I have consistently received this feedback from individuals and communities we work with. So, while I will continue to give your suggestion additional serious consideration, I wanted to be honest about where I am at present and what my reluctance is and why. (That said, while I have been familiar with and an occasional quiet visitor to the WA hunter's forum, I will re-visit it this week as I consider your recommendation...)
This leads me to another question, if you'll allow me... Are there or could we create more/better face-to-face opportunities for bringing the diverse hunting community together? In my work in WA, hunters will talk to me about the threats to and fracturing within the hunting community - and while I see the threats and the conflict, what I also see is an incredible opportunity because the rich diversity of the hunting community could actually be an incredibly powerful strength if harnessed in a collective, positive way. I actually think, perhaps more than any other user group, the hunting community has the power to bridge the east-west, urban-rural, left-right, etc, divide in your state (and in our nation)...and become an even more powerful agent for positive, durable change in WA and elsewhere... I just haven't gotten traction on or figured out a way to support constructive face-to-face engagement and empowerment on that path ...but I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas.
Above all, thank you, Jake. I am humbled, inspired and honored by your reaching out and continuing discussions with me.
Francine
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 09, 2018, 10:57:26 AM
That was a very good letter to Francine and a very nice response from her. Good for you for taking that step. :tup:
She did well in her responces. And she is smart to avoid social media for these conversations. That becomes "wack a mole" to readily for anything constructive.
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2018, 11:10:00 AM
That was a very good letter to Francine and a very nice response from her. Good for you for taking that step. :tup:
She did well in her responces. And she is smart to avoid social media for these conversations. That becomes "wack a mole" to readily for anything constructive.
agree - but I would personally guarantee her safety here should she choose to engage within this forum :chuckle: I haven't discussed this with the other mods, but I for one would be very open to a special rules open dialog with her should she choose to engage here.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 09, 2018, 11:23:24 AM
As it's been said, we as hunters do not stand together....we tear each other down. We are unable (generally speaking) to speak with one voice. There is just too much special interest (weapons, east vs west, seasons for weapons, etc.)
I'm impressed by this gal, her willingness to talk and the sincere interest in making a positive difference. Not sure I'd mix with all of us clowns tho. I think best case would be a person doing what you are doing. This forum could make suggestions and someone like you could share the views that are worth sharing. :twocents:
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 09, 2018, 11:38:45 AM
Thanks Anderson for doing what you are doing. Talking is the first step. As for her engagement on this forum......wow. That could be tricky. Let's back up a second and imagine that you were on the board as a common hunter. But, you had to report back what you were working on to this forum. Even if you were fantastic at your "job", you'd catch flack.
As it's been said, we as hunters do not stand together....we tear each other down. We are unable (generally speaking) to speak with one voice. There is just too much special interest (weapons, east vs west, seasons for weapons, etc.)
I'm impressed by this gal, her willingness to talk and the sincere interest in making a positive difference. Not sure I'd mix with all of us clowns tho. I think best case would be a person doing what you are doing. This forum could make suggestions and someone like you could share the views that are worth sharing. :twocents:
I totally agree. I fully expected to catch some flak for even attempting to engage with with her. I left out some portions of our discussion mainly the part where she gave me her phone number and offered an invitation to keep communication with her. I agree that having a representative to help share a collective hunters voice is probably best for all involved. I'm not sure I am the most qualified for this task, but I will continue to stay in communication with her and try to keep our voice heard and strive for our seat at the table.
Post by: jackelope on January 09, 2018, 11:40:08 AM
That was a very good letter to Francine and a very nice response from her. Good for you for taking that step. :tup:
She did well in her responces. And she is smart to avoid social media for these conversations. That becomes "wack a mole" to readily for anything constructive.
agree - but I would personally guarantee her safety here should she choose to engage within this forum :chuckle: I haven't discussed this with the other mods, but I for one would be very open to a special rules open dialog with her should she choose to engage here.
Exact thoughts from me as well. We could come up with a scheduled time for dialogue between her and us. Maybe in order to avoid the "whack a mole" effect, the questions would be sent to a moderator and posed to her giving her a chance to respond to one at a time. That's 30 seconds of thinking about it so I'd appreciate some input on this topic. Maybe we come up with a solid plan and Jake can present it to her.
It wouldn't be too far fetched to think we could come up with a hunter representative for her group from the members here too. Something else to consider.
I'm also impressed by her willingness to cooperate.
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2018, 11:43:56 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 09, 2018, 11:45:02 AM
Well to me it's obvious she's recruiting, right now the WAG is nothing but an echo chamber and as such lacks credibility.
I can think of a few people I would nominate without thinking twice about it.
Post by: jennabug on January 09, 2018, 11:49:53 AM
Post by: timberfaller on January 09, 2018, 11:50:03 AM
Was not surprised at her responding to Mr. Anderson, nor her vocabulary, see it all to often.
I fully understand the term "dialogue" and know when my leg is being pulled. There are two sides to every story and its their job to win any way they can for their side. Compromise is not an option.
But Thanks Mr. Anderson for doing what you did :tup: , its a start, but I think the "fix" is already in play and lip service come easy to the "trained".
She sounds as slick as Mike Grady was! Some on here will remember him!! :o
Post by: jackelope on January 09, 2018, 11:52:39 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2018, 11:57:12 AM
Having been in to numerous "public meetings" over the years, She is your typical "consultant". One word describes them, TRAINED. They spend years honing their craft.
Was not surprised at her responding to Mr. Anderson, nor her vocabulary, see it all to often.
I fully understand the term "dialogue" and know when my leg is being pulled. There are two sides to every story and its their job to win any way they can for their side. Compromise is not an option.
But Thanks Mr. Anderson for doing what you did :tup: , its a start, but I think the "fix" is already in play and lip service come easy to the "trained".
She sounds as slick as Mike Grady was! Some on here will remember him!! :o
I had the exact same thoughts, and it may be true, but I don't see anything positive in "taking our ball and going home". By not participating in her advisory group (even if it is a farce) do we have any leg to stand on when we complain about what we get?
1) The WAG had members from cattlemen
2) The WAG had hunters
3) Hunters and cattlemen were "driven out"
4) Madden appears and closes the doors, no more public allowed
5) Madden now has an echo chamber of like minded individuals, easy to see why progress is made.
5) Now that it's winding down Madden invites people from the hunting community to "validate" her victory
Yes, I had the same thoughts as you timberfaller, but should we not try? The results are likely to be the same in either scenario.
Post by: jackelope on January 09, 2018, 11:57:21 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 09, 2018, 11:59:02 AM
Having been in to numerous "public meetings" over the years, She is your typical "consultant". One word describes them, TRAINED. They spend years honing their craft.
Was not surprised at her responding to Mr. Anderson, nor her vocabulary, see it all to often.
I fully understand the term "dialogue" and know when my leg is being pulled. There are two sides to every story and its their job to win any way they can for their side. Compromise is not an option.
But Thanks Mr. Anderson for doing what you did :tup: , its a start, but I think the "fix" is already in play and lip service come easy to the "trained".
She sounds as slick as Mike Grady was! Some on here will remember him!! :o
I had the exact same thoughts, and it may be true, but I don't see anything positive in "taking our ball and going home". By not participating in her advisory group (even if it is a farce) do we have any leg to stand on when we complain about what we get?
1) The WAG had members from cattlemen
2) The WAG had hunters
3) Hunters and cattlemen were "driven out"
4) Madden appears and closes the doors, no more public allowed
5) Madden now has an echo chamber of like minded individules, easy to see why progress is made :DOH:
5) Now that it's winding down Madden invites people from the hunting community to "validate" her victory
Yes, I had the same thoughts as you timberfaller, but should we not try? The results are likely to be the same in either scenario.
Same scenario... http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,222929.msg2966672/topicseen.html#new
You're advocating for not buying hunting licenses in Washington anymore but you're questioning(it seems) whether or not this is a good opportunity to get hunters' voices out there. I don't get it.
@KFhunter
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2018, 12:04:28 PM
Sorry about being the wet dog stinking up the room, but it became very clear, very early on in the wolf plan process that blowing smoke up everyone's butt was the status quo and remains so today.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 09, 2018, 12:05:57 PM
It is better to have tried and failed then to have not tried at all.
She obviously listened to what was said and responded in a very positive manner. That is a great start. Maybe it doesn't go anywhere but at least we get a little insight as to what happens behind the curtain.
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2018, 12:06:54 PM
Same scenario... http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,222929.msg2966672/topicseen.html#new
You're advocating for not buying hunting licenses in Washington anymore but you're questioning(it seems) whether or not this is a good opportunity to get hunters' voices out there. I don't get it.
@KFhunter
Actually I was not (advocating not buying licenses)
I've been seeing a lot of disgruntled hunters saying they're no longer buying tags in WA, that they're taking their money and going to another state. I started a thread to talk about that. I'm still buying WA tags, Yes, I'm angry at WDFW, Yes, I want to change WDFW - but we need to focus our anger into productivity. Hunters have never been able to channel their anger into productivity. What is one pissed off hunter? Nothing. This forum is the largest voice of WA hunters with some 10% of all instate hunters participating and even more guests. We should probably get some numbers updated, I'm approving 5+ members per day here.
As I said in that thread:
Quote
Trying to hit WDFW's pocket book is not my goal here, that would be counter intuitive to increased enforcement. I think WDFW would cut enforcement back before they cut the things I'd like to see cut. As stated previously I've seen numerous posts where the hunter is saying they're not buying any more tags in WA so I thought it worthy of a thread.
That is my motivation.
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2018, 12:10:46 PM
Great thread with potential.
It is better to have tried and failed then to have not tried at all.
She obviously listened to what was said and responded in a very positive manner. That is a great start. Maybe it doesn't go anywhere but at least we get a little insight as to what happens behind the curtain.
exactly
Post by: Special T on January 09, 2018, 12:14:18 PM
For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.
1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references) it is near impossible for sportsmen to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution. I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.
2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.
How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.
I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.
I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems. To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on January 09, 2018, 12:20:02 PM
Same scenario... http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,222929.msg2966672/topicseen.html#new
You're advocating for not buying hunting licenses in Washington anymore but you're questioning(it seems) whether or not this is a good opportunity to get hunters' voices out there. I don't get it.
@KFhunter
Actually I was not (advocating not buying licenses)
I've been seeing a lot of disgruntled hunters saying they're no longer buying tags in WA, that they're taking their money and going to another state. I started a thread to talk about that. I'm still buying WA tags, Yes, I'm angry at WDFW, Yes, I want to change WDFW - but we need to focus our anger into productivity. Hunters have never been able to channel their anger into productivity. What is one pissed off hunter? Nothing. This forum is the largest voice of WA hunters with some 10% of all instate hunters participating and even more guests. We should probably get some numbers updated, I'm approving 5+ members per day here.
As I said in that thread:QuoteTrying to hit WDFW's pocket book is not my goal here, that would be counter intuitive to increased enforcement. I think WDFW would cut enforcement back before they cut the things I'd like to see cut. As stated previously I've seen numerous posts where the hunter is saying they're not buying any more tags in WA so I thought it worthy of a thread.
That is my motivation.
Our state did all the angering around here, we don't do ourselves any favors by getting mad at one another - we all want the same thing, improved hunting and better management and a voice at the table.
Did you see the table for the wolf discussion courtesy of HighCountryHunter88?Steering Committee
Charles Brown USDA – Wildlife Services
Renee Bumpus Houston Zoo
Kyle Burks Denver Zoo
Nancy Gloman Defenders of Wildlife
Kym Gopp Cleveland Metroparks Zoo
Stephanie Boyles-Griffin The Humane Society of the United States
Kirsten Leong US National Park Service
Francine Madden Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration
Rebecca Rose Columbus Zoo
Advisory Committee
Ed Clark Wildlife Center of Virginia
Peter Crawshaw IBAMA – Iguacu National Park, Brazil
Nina Fascione Defenders of Wildlife
Camilla Fox Project Coyote
John Hadidian The Humane Society of the United States
Michael Hutchins American Bird Conservancy
Rodney Jackson Snow Leopard Conservancy
Michael Manfredo Colorado State University
Laurie Marker Cheetah Conservation Fund
Brian McQuinn United Nations Development Programme
Oxford University
Julie Stein Scentmark
Wildlife Friendly Enterprise Network
Nicole Weaver American
I don't see a voice at that table for us :dunno:
Here's a great opportunity for a voice at the table that we're definitely missing.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2018, 12:27:20 PM
Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.
For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.
1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references) it is near impossible for sportsmen to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution. I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.
2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.
How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.
I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.
I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems. To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.
Post by: jackelope on January 09, 2018, 12:29:30 PM
Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.
For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.
1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references) it is near impossible for sportsmen to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution. I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.
2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.
How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.
I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.
I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems. To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.
Does the fact that she wrote/published the article mean anything? Or did she just sign her name on it...
She seems like more than just a mediator to me. Either way, if they're looking for a representative from the hunting community and she's nothing more than a puppet used to put that word out there, I'll take it as it's better than nothing.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 09, 2018, 12:31:32 PM
If not dialogue with her then who do you think the dialogue should be started with to have a positive effect and outcome?Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.
For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.
1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references) it is near impossible for sportsmen to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution. I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.
2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.
How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.
I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.
I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems. To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.
Post by: Special T on January 09, 2018, 12:32:39 PM
For an off the cuff idea. Take a person that wants to engage, and let them give an opening statement. Why they are here, what they would like to discuss. Either do this in a locked thread titled discussion with XYZ person and submit questions statements comments to the mods for approval.
That or you would have to have several moderators trim/police an open forum heavily.
IMO one of the hardest things about this forum on important issues is to hold elevated debate and discussion on important issues. Comments like Pmans or Timberfallers are important to the discussion, but have to be restrained so that an important discussion doesn't go off the rails. We have had so many great discussions on here with potential that get overshadowed by rants instead of discussion.
Writing clearly is a challenge for us all, and I don't think any of us have not suffered sheer frustration in discussions.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2018, 12:37:38 PM
The Commission, the Wildlife director, the WDFW Director, and the Governor. And they're not going to listen to a bunch of gun-toting, cattle raising, wildlife concerned citizens who think it's time to give the NE some relief and delist. We don't donate to Inslee but we know who does.If not dialogue with her then who do you think the dialogue should be started with to have a positive effect and outcome?Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.
For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.
1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references) it is near impossible for sportsmen to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution. I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.
2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.
How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.
I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.
I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems. To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 09, 2018, 12:51:10 PM
You have all the right players there but do you understand that there is a chain of command? You can't just go to the Governor and expect that your going to get what you want.The Commission, the Wildlife director, the WDFW Director, and the Governor. And they're not going to listen to a bunch of gun-toting, cattle raising, wildlife concerned citizens who think it's time to give the NE some relief and delist. We don't donate to Inslee but we know who does.If not dialogue with her then who do you think the dialogue should be started with to have a positive effect and outcome?Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.
For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.
1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references) it is near impossible for sportsmen to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution. I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.
2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.
How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.
I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.
I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems. To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.
Post by: jmscon on January 09, 2018, 12:54:32 PM
If given an opportunity and not even give it a chance, how does anyone expect a change?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2018, 12:55:01 PM
You have all the right players there but do you understand that there is a chain of command? You can't just go to the Governor and expect that your going to get what you want.The Commission, the Wildlife director, the WDFW Director, and the Governor. And they're not going to listen to a bunch of gun-toting, cattle raising, wildlife concerned citizens who think it's time to give the NE some relief and delist. We don't donate to Inslee but we know who does.If not dialogue with her then who do you think the dialogue should be started with to have a positive effect and outcome?Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.
For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.
1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references) it is near impossible for sportsmen to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution. I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.
2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.
How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.
I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.
I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems. To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.
Are you being rhetorical? Those are simply the people making the decisions about wolves. I actually don't even think that Mr. Pamplin's views have very much sway. The lower down "chain-of-command" is where the smoke blowing starts. They think they have a say. And make no mistake; I won't be getting what I want.
Post by: Special T on January 09, 2018, 12:58:44 PM
I would liken a discussion with a focus group. Normally they are used to gain insight to a group of people. They are not used for scientific purposes but to obtain a general insight. As a group we would have no control over how that info is used.
My off the cuff assessment is that Her group is acting very similar to a Marketing Firm. I have personally been part of focus groups where the information gleaned was used to make a better sales pitch for a predetermined outcome. Unfortunately in the business world this mostly the case. Is it done with the altruistic motives of discovery and understanding? Sure but it is certainly in the minority.
Should we participate? Maybe. I'm inclined to agree with Pman on his assessment.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
Maybe a cordial conversation with her could bring voices to the table with the group that otherwise would fall on deaf ears. If she is a true moderator than she will bring up these conversations of concerns with the group. If it’s just a bunch of rants and berating than I’m sure it will follow the current course. I’m sure all of the people on these boards have gotten thousands of emails from hunters and cattlemen that have been anything but cordial.
If given an opportunity and not even give it a chance, how does anyone expect a change?
That's just not her job as the coordinator. She doesn't bring voices to the table. She gets the voices already at the table to work together. That's what they hired her to do. I'm not making a statement about what I think of her - I have no opinion about her. And I'm not saying that a hunter's/sportsman's voice at the table wouldn't be a good thing
Post by: Southpole on January 09, 2018, 01:01:10 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 09, 2018, 01:03:16 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2018, 01:09:05 PM
WDFW wants cattlemen and hunters to accept the wolves, but didn't employ any types of mediation to try to get other groups around the state to accept hound hunting, bear baiting, trapping...doesn't seem interested in any acceptance with co managers either.
What is the common denominator between the referendum on bait and hounds and the outrageous wolf plan? It should be fairly obvious. :tup:
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 09, 2018, 01:22:00 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2018, 01:28:02 PM
And incidentally, I think it's great that you wrote her. Thanks for being proactive for our wildlife. That's huge.
Post by: Curly on January 09, 2018, 01:39:03 PM
:o
Post by: jackelope on January 09, 2018, 01:46:23 PM
Getting a hunter on the WAG could be good. It wouldn't hurt, certainly.
And incidentally, I think it's great that you wrote her. Thanks for being proactive for our wildlife. That's huge.
There are currently, at a minimum, 2 hunters that I know of sitting on the WAG.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 09, 2018, 01:52:45 PM
I wonder if she is billing the state of WA $800/hr for every email she is answering? My guess would be yes...........
:o
Likely. I would.
Post by: Curly on January 09, 2018, 02:14:54 PM
They should save their money for when they need to pay for wolf damages and/or have to pay for killing of a pack. That just seems like a ton of money that has no real benefit........(other than for the state to say "see we spent X amount of $ trying to get everybody to get along".
It most likely is never going to do a bit of good to have a "wolf plan consultant", but if they insist on having one they could at least find someone for way cheaper. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on January 09, 2018, 02:39:16 PM
Being the token sportsmen, or greatly outnumbered on an advisory panel allows the Overton Window to shift with ease. I almost compare it to being the lone Republican or Democrat in a household. You either need to be hypervigilant and outspoken to maintain you values or slide to the opposing side. Numbers determine the direction of the movement. It is a rare thing for some one in the Minorty to influence a group of greater numbers. It's just human nature.
If there was a discussion I'd be more interested in what questions she asks us because it would show what the areas of concern are.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: mfswallace on January 09, 2018, 03:14:08 PM
Response from Francine Madden:
Please also accept my apologies on all accounts. Especially for any unintended negative impacts in your community. I would also like to ask your advice: As my organization enters it's final year of engagement on the wolf issue, do you have any suggestions or recommendations for me on how to repair any damage in the short term or engage with the hunting community, especially as we enter into a discussion about post-recovery planning? Is there anything I can do in my work in WA to rebuild the trust in the short term, recognizing that the recruitment process we are currently engaged in to get back to our board balance will likely extend beyond our WA timeline. I have both ears open if you have any suggestions for me.
Thank you, Jake. I wish you and yours a happy new year!
Francine
Immediate action should be taken to rewrite the ludicrous wolf recovery plan including after recovery hunting management allowances!!!!! Then transplant the necessary packs to the west side to start the hunting management!!
Post by: Gringo31 on January 09, 2018, 03:58:43 PM
Quote
do you have any suggestions or recommendations for me on how to repair any damage in the short term or engage with the hunting community,
I like the dialogue but I think I'd want to hear from her what damage she speaks of. Does she understand why people are upset? IF she does know....... what possible solution is there?
Post by: bobcat on January 09, 2018, 04:11:42 PM
Post by: jmscon on January 09, 2018, 05:36:29 PM
I did not know what her capacity was on the board, moderator or chair. I am glad that she has responded to emails the way that she has! Thanks Anderson for reaching out!
Post by: hunter399 on January 09, 2018, 07:16:25 PM
Then I wanna watch him rip em a new one.
Then I might be a little more supportive.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 09, 2018, 07:47:51 PM
She does seem sincere in her e-mails but the trust is not there to not believe it is just lip service. Hunters are a very passionate group and with that there are some extremists. But the same goes with the anti-hunting groups.
I guess it could be considered a start. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2018, 08:11:01 PM
Sorry but I would not give this person the time of day. The way I see it she's stealing 1.6 million dollars from us, via the WDFW. It blows my mind that they feel this was worth 1.6 million dollars. Total joke if you ask me.
Don't disagree, but I can't blame her for taking advantage of a sucker.
Seeing as how's she's getting paid anyways, shouldn't we engage?
Post by: bobcat on January 09, 2018, 08:36:35 PM
Sorry but I would not give this person the time of day. The way I see it she's stealing 1.6 million dollars from us, via the WDFW. It blows my mind that they feel this was worth 1.6 million dollars. Total joke if you ask me.
Don't disagree, but I can't blame her for taking advantage of a sucker.
Seeing as how's she's getting paid anyways, shouldn't we engage?
Yes, I suppose so, but I really don't feel like it will make any difference whatsoever. The wolves are here and they're here to stay. I'd rather have seen that 1.6 million spent on habitat.
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2018, 08:54:25 PM
We all know wolves are here to stay, even the most anti wolf hating rancher with a bunch of dead calves or sheep know the wolves are here to stay..but we still need to talk about it, we still need management. Part of the wolf recovery plan is acceptance by the local stakeholders, Madden is there primarily to facilitate that endeavor, as such we still have a voice in that arena.
Without public acceptance it won't be long before someone's dropping arsenic meatballs on denning sites.
Post by: Humptulips on January 09, 2018, 09:02:08 PM
What I get from it is her talking about putting a hunter representative on her groups advisory council or the steering committee.
So what's that going to do? Any hunter is going to be outnumbered 19 to 1, just a token.
For that matter I think she is blowing smoke. If she wanted to have hunter representation she would have recruited from some well known hunter advocacy organizations like RMEF or Safari club. She wouldn't be trying to string along some well meaning guys off a talk forum.
She certainly managed to get all the anti hunting groups well represented.
I doubt she cares beyond her paycheck and getting everybody to compromise.
And by the way why is it called compromise when we give and the anti hunting community take, always! Show me one time we were asked to give something up and in return got something we didn't already have.
Post by: Southpole on January 09, 2018, 09:03:36 PM
Post by: bknilvr00 on January 10, 2018, 06:50:47 AM
Post by: ribka on January 10, 2018, 06:59:04 AM
Thank you andersonjk4 for reaching out on the behalf of the hunting community. That took time and thought to put an intelligent email together to send to Ms. Madden. Again, thank you. That being said. Ms. Madden has a degree in being a word wizard and people trainer. You can hire a neutral mediator with no interest in the subject matter but the state hired a mediator with a strong lean towards and actively involved in anti hunting/ animal tolerance groups... very biased. That's where the state and Ms. Madden lost me. As I've mentioned in other threads she's a human trainer. The state has a predetermined plan for the wildlife in this state and it's up to Ms. Madden to make it appear as if everyone was heard and all user groups had a say. It's the states way of saying " well, we did what we could sooo :dunno:" Sorry for being so negative but I think she's just entertaining us.
So as a hunter in the state of Washington you want to engage in meaningful dialogue with someone from Houston who states that her job is to manipulate people. :chuckle:
I knew from her background as a social actiivist that even before reading her response you were being shined on.
Lots of excuses in her response ( which is a typical behavior for pathological liars) and for someone who is very highly paid by the tax payers to do her job.
Someone who is paid more than $400 an hour by the tax payers cant even keep an updated business web site and then is not even concerned enough to keep a hunting representative on the board that contains multiple out of state anti hunting representatives and her sole job is to mediate between ALL user groups? How much money do sportsmen bring into the state of Washington economy every year and to the WDFW? Millions and millions of dollars. How much money do anti hunting groups from out of state bring in? Zero
She knew the hunting rep was retiring ; when someone retires you have a replacement lined up and trained before they leave.
"Acutely aware?" what a load of BS
and most importantly, we also are very acutely aware that we have not yet replaced our hunter representative after he retired. And your email is exceptionally timely as this exact issue came up at our December board of directors meeting. It is one of the top items on our organizational "to do" list for 2018...
Good luck with this social activist whose job it is to manipulate people, but some of the more seasoned guys on here ( see their responses) , including me, have pretty good BS detectors and after reading her responses I think, or I should say I know, you are being shined on on but good luck with that :tup:
She is laughing all the way to bank
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2018, 07:25:02 AM
For change to the outrageous wolf plan, there are only two possibilities. One occurs when the USFWS and the WDFW admit the the approved wolf plan was based on non-scientific myths championed by animal rights organizations and accepted by both agencies, mistruths and misinformation campaigns, and telling the truth to our citizens about the realities of what uncontrolled wolf population growth means to WA in terms of economic loss, disease, increased ungulate predation and stress, and the direct and imminent danger to the citizens of our state. Since that admission will never take place, legislative change is the only other course. And good luck getting that to happen with a totally D-controlled legislature and executive. People will have to start being attacked and killed by wolves for this wake-up to take place. And, it will happen. As the ungulate herds dwindle, wolves will become increasingly habituated to preying on livestock, seeking out garbage, and coming closer to and being more and more comfortable around people. This is a historically documented progression of wolf behavior in every part of the world that has populations of them. Our wildlife officials lied to us and our legislators when they shoved this down our throats, and they continue to do so.
Post by: Gringo31 on January 10, 2018, 07:38:43 AM
Quote
So as a hunter in the state of Washington you want to engage in meaningful dialogue with someone from Houston who states that her job is to manipulate people. :chuckle:
I knew from her background as a social actiivist that even before reading her response you were being shined on.
Lots of excuses in her response ( which is a typical behavior for pathological liars) and for someone who is very highly paid by the tax payers to do her job.
Someone who is paid more than $400 an hour by the tax payers cant even keep an updated business web site and then is not even concerned enough to keep a hunting representative on the board that contains multiple out of state anti hunting representatives and her sole job is to mediate between ALL user groups? How much money do sportsmen bring into the state of Washington economy every year and to the WDFW? Millions and millions of dollars. How much money do anti hunting groups from out of state bring in? Zero
She knew the hunting rep was retiring ; when someone retires you have a replacement lined up and trained before they leave.
"Acutely aware?" what a load of BS
and most importantly, we also are very acutely aware that we have not yet replaced our hunter representative after he retired. And your email is exceptionally timely as this exact issue came up at our December board of directors meeting. It is one of the top items on our organizational "to do" list for 2018...
Good luck with this social activist whose job it is to manipulate people, but some of the more seasoned guys on here ( see their responses) , including me, have pretty good BS detectors and after reading her responses I think, or I should say I know, you are being shined on on but good luck with that :tup:
She is laughing all the way to bank
It goes back to what I said earlier. Does she understand why hunters are upset? I mean really understand. Not just what the animal rights folks have told her why we are upset.
Post by: ribka on January 10, 2018, 08:10:45 AM
Really well written book that covers the wolf reintroduction in the US. If she was really genuinely interested in doing her job and representing all user groups she would be more than happy and actually grateful to read this
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Wolf-Politics-Economics-Co-Existing/dp/159152122X
thanks
And since you opened a dialogue with her would you please ask her about this statement on her web site
Building trust between conservationists and ranchers to reveal a critical truth about subversive anti-conservation actions, which allowed the conservation organizations and government to avoid wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars and foster conditions that led to the project's success.
Ask her what she means by "subversive anti conservation actions" Is she referring to hunters and some of the members on here that believe apex predators need to be controlled and managed?
Is the term "subversive" a good label for someone involved, supposedly, in conflict resolution? Seems inflammatory to me but Im just a dumb sportsmen
And Why are there over 20 anti hunting organizations listed on her website and not one sportsmen's group?
is this part of her conflict resolution, fairness, diversity and meaningful equitable dialogue? :dunno: :dunno:
Ive attended a few wolf meetings in WA and it was obvious they ,WDFW, had no interest in hearing feedback from sportsmen who help fund their agency.
well, at least the anti hunting groups are praising Francine on her web site. Ironic that she is training anti hunting groups how to deal with sportsmen and help them end hunting. Yep she sounds like she can be trusted
from her website:
You don’t realize how much you need this training until you’ve taken it!” – Nancy Gloman, VP Field Operations, Defenders of Wildlife
These social activists like Francine are ego centric and think sportsmen as a group of naive, easily manipulated , unsophisticated , uneducated, country white trash. This is what anti hunting groups like Defenders of Wildlife, HSUS etc are telling her.
Sportsmen through license sales and sales from the Pitmen Robertson act (https://vistaoutdoor.com/2017/06/pittman-robertson-excise-tax/) in the US and sportsmen conservation groups like RMEF, DU, TU, Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, Ruffed Grouse Society, NRA etc contribute tens of millions of dollars a year to conservation efforts, wildlife habitat etc in the US and Canada. For Francine not to even profess to know this and her job is resolution between user groups concerning wildlife is inexcusable. Either she is incredibly uniformed, uneducated or a liar. We all know she s the latter.
She thinks you can be placated by a form letter containing a bunch of meaningless, empty platitudes :dunno:
The thing with people Like Francine is that she can be pinned down and reveal her true goals by merely asking specific questions which of course she will deflect using her conflict resolution and human manipulation training and refuse to answer. Look at the spokesman from CNW who used to come on here and try and spread pro wolf propaganda. As soon as someone asked repeatedly if CNW supported all legal forms of sport hunting he disappeared.
This is a long winded post to begin with, but I hope all will take the time to read through it eventually. Moderators please feel free to relocated as seen fit, but I wanted to get this in front of as many eyes as possible:
After reading a few of the threads on here regarding the WDFW's hiring of the conflict resolution consultant and reading mostly negative comments I decided I would do some research and try to gather more information on the situation. My thinking was "If this is really as bad as everyone was/is making is seem then we (hunters) need to do something to change this". I started by going back and reading the paper she published with the WDFW: People and Wolves in Washington: Stakeholder Conflict Assessment and Recommendations for Conflict Transformation
(https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01719/wdfw01719.pdf (https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01719/wdfw01719.pdf))
In this paper I discovered that the author portray's hunter's as an important stakeholder in the wolf recovery debate and gives, in my opinion, a very accurate assessment of the sentiments of hunters towards wolves, wolf recovery and the WDFW handling of wolves in general. I then went to the Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, the organization she represents, website. There I found a strong message of coexisting and coming together for the good of wildlife. What I didn't find was any mention of or indication that the voice of hunters was part of their collaborative. This is where I decided I needed to take some action and not just get onto the forum and rant and rave. I decided to reach out to Francine Madden and let her know that I thought were portrayal of hunters in her paper was fair, but in order to bring in the support of the hunting community I urged her to consider adding a legitimate hunting presence to her organization's committees. I fully expected a canned "thank you for your email and your comments will be considered" type of email in response and for her to not really take it seriously. Instead I received a very thoughtful and thorough response almost immediately. I will share my email and her response below. Out of courtesy, I made sure she was ok with me sharing our conversation and she was more than accepting of me wanting to share it.
My intent in sharing this and starting this thread is not to push any wolf related agenda or try and convince anyone of any wolf related issues. (I have not stated mine or any other wolf related opinions in this thread or my conversation with Francine for a reason). The only agenda I am pushing here is to get the voice of the hunter heard and try and get us a seat at the table. My intent is to try and show hunters that our voice can be heard if we are willing to put forth the effort. That being said Francine is looking for continued input from the hunting community and this may end up being a good place for constructive discussion regarding the next phase of the wolf recovery plan development.
My original email:
Hello,
I have been following the work you have been involved in with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding wolf-human conflict resolution. I read your paper People and Wolves in Washington: Stakeholder Conflict Assessment and Recommendations for Conflict Transformation, and appreciate your consideration of all user groups and how their stake in the issue. Within this document, I feel you have portrayed a fair assessment of hunters and our sentiment toward wolves and wolf-human conflict. However, I have seen a high level of distrust and negative sentiment from the hunting community toward you and your organization. This stems mainly from the affiliations of a majority of the committee members you list on your website. Many of these affiliations have a reputation for being staunch anti-hunting or at least not pro hunting. You stress coexistence on your website and I feel from reading your work that you understand the stake hunters have in conflict resolution and in wildlife conservation in general. I would urge you to consider recruiting some intelligent individuals from the hunting community to join your committees. This would go A LONG WAYS in giving your organization some credibility within the hunting community. This, and I think you would find a majority of hunters share the same level of respect and compassion toward wild animals as the other members of your committee. Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Jake Anderson
Washington Resident and Hunter
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2018, 08:52:33 AM
The WAG itself, also has very few or no teeth. They discuss what's going on from their viewpoints and the Wildlife Commission and the Director are the ones who actually make the decisions. Their decisions may or may not be influenced by the WAG. IMHO, this is a very expensive dog and pony show that masks the fact that decisions have been, are being, and will be made with little consideration of her moderations or the joint efforts of the people on the WAG...except for those of the animal rights people, that is. Our government is crystal clear about their goals.
Sorry about being the wet dog stinking up the room, but it became very clear, very early on in the wolf plan process that blowing smoke up everyone's butt was the status quo and remains so today.
The WAG may have been put together with good intentions, however there are major issues with it as well!
Well done on the dialogue Anderson, I'll be paying attention to see how this goes too. :tup:
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2018, 09:02:54 AM
Getting a hunter on the WAG could be good. It wouldn't hurt, certainly.
And incidentally, I think it's great that you wrote her. Thanks for being proactive for our wildlife. That's huge.
I responded to this but maybe you missed it. Are you saying there aren't currently hunters on the WAG?
@pianoman9701
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2018, 09:04:44 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2018, 09:05:50 AM
Getting a hunter on the WAG could be good. It wouldn't hurt, certainly.
And incidentally, I think it's great that you wrote her. Thanks for being proactive for our wildlife. That's huge.
I responded to this but maybe you missed it. Are you saying there aren't currently hunters on the WAG?
@pianoman9701
No. More hunters might be better. Although, I don't believe the WAG is good for anything.
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2018, 09:12:02 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 10, 2018, 09:31:25 AM
I'd be happy if they hired some part time intern to "manage" wolves and wolf issues in this state. All the resources going into an animal we will never be able to hunt is just absurd when there are so many more pressing things to be spending time and money on.
Better yet - let another agency or group deal with wolves...keep WDFW completely out of it. Let WDFW focus on things they can actually manage - like habitat, regulations, hunting access etc.
Post by: elkchaser54 on January 10, 2018, 09:45:26 AM
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 10, 2018, 09:57:35 AM
I am not trying to portray myself as a great conservationist or perfect representative for hunting. In fact, until recently I have done very little besides buying my hunting license/tags to help conservation or hunting. But recently I have decided it is time to put the rubber to the road and start taking some actual actions. I was very surprised by the response I got to the email I sent to Ms Madden. I sent the email with very little expectation that I would even get a response or that she would read it. Moral of the story is, if we all took a little bit of time to make some small effort toward the betterment of hunting we could potentially get somewhere, but if no actions are taken, that is a sure way to guarantee we will go nowhere.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 10, 2018, 10:35:37 AM
The hatred and vitriol towards a women none of us have met is the reason our voices don't get any where and we get responses that have no action behind them. I'd urge you to reach out to hunting organizations and let them know that Washington has a Wolf advisory group that has zero representation by any hunting groups . See if they are willing to reach out, maybe a larger group like RMEF has a bigger pull then an individual reaching out. I'd also like to commend the original poster, I think you did a very good job explaining your position and voicing your opinion in a calm well spoken manner. So thank you for doing so !I am pretty sure this has been addressed and is not true.
@jackelope
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:05 AM
The hatred and vitriol towards a women none of us have met is the reason our voices don't get any where and we get responses that have no action behind them. I'd urge you to reach out to hunting organizations and let them know that Washington has a Wolf advisory group that has zero representation by any hunting groups . See if they are willing to reach out, maybe a larger group like RMEF has a bigger pull then an individual reaching out. I'd also like to commend the original poster, I think you did a very good job explaining your position and voicing your opinion in a calm well spoken manner. So thank you for doing so !
I don't see anyone spouting hatred and vitriol against her at all. Most of what you're seeing is disgust at the WDFW for spending over $1m on a consultant for a job which won't change the status quo of the wolf situation one bit. :dunno:
Post by: ribka on January 10, 2018, 10:58:48 AM
I have been contacting and bugging RMEF and the mule deer foundation for years to lobby WDFW and try and participate in the WAG and predator issues in this state and in Idaho.
I have also contacted state representatives here in WA voicing my concern that the user group that contributes the most to wildlife in the state, sportsmen, are shut out of the dialogue.
Give me a break regarding Francine and her ignorance. She is being paid an exorbitant amount of money because she is an "expert" supposedly well -versed in all aspect of wildlife management and conflict resolution and it says so on her web site and linked in profile. As a tax payer I am outraged that this money was wasted by WDFW when it could have been used to benefit wildlife in our state. How about some bitter brush restoration for mule deer after the years of fires? How about an elk fence along I 90 outside Ellensburg to reduce elk collisions?
To profess to know nothing about the contributions of sportsmen when she led this kangaroo panel?
Give me a friggin break
The Pittman Robertson Act ( tax dollars from sportsmen) has been around over 80 years and has allocated money to wildlife conservation in the 100's of millions of dollars. That is 100 times more than every anti hunting group listed on her website
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act
The issue is not this facilitator. It's the WDFW spending this kind of money on such a low priority issue.
I'd be happy if they hired some part time intern to "manage" wolves and wolf issues in this state. All the resources going into an animal we will never be able to hunt is just absurd when there are so many more pressing things to be spending time and money on.
Better yet - let another agency or group deal with wolves...keep WDFW completely out of it. Let WDFW focus on things they can actually manage - like habitat, regulations, hunting access etc.
Post by: MR5x5 on January 10, 2018, 11:21:00 AM
Regardless of how we got here, we are currently here. Any change would need to come from the here and now. No change is guaranteed. Need to get past the Hatfield vs McCoy feelings.
One thing is for damn sure, if you are not at the table, regardless of how stack it might seem, then you have no voice at the table.
You may not like the game, but it is the game in play. Play it or or take up arms against it I guess?
Post by: bobcat on January 10, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2018, 11:40:30 AM
I've read every response. All I can is say is, sad.
Regardless of how we got here, we are currently here. Any change would need to come from the here and now. No change is guaranteed. Need to get past the Hatfield vs McCoy feelings.
One thing is for damn sure, if you are not at the table, regardless of how stack it might seem, then you have no voice at the table.
You may not like the game, but it is the game in play. Play it or or take up arms against it I guess?
There is no game of which we can be a part. Many of us have been at the table and several times. The minds of the wolf people were made up far in advance of all the hearings and the objections and the fears of those who would be most affected by the plan. Anyone can say "I understand your concerns.", while completely ignoring them and doing what they'd set out to do anyway. That's what has and will continue to happen.
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2018, 12:45:21 PM
The hatred and vitriol towards a women none of us have met is the reason our voices don't get any where and we get responses that have no action behind them. I'd urge you to reach out to hunting organizations and let them know that Washington has a Wolf advisory group that has zero representation by any hunting groups . See if they are willing to reach out, maybe a larger group like RMEF has a bigger pull then an individual reaching out. I'd also like to commend the original poster, I think you did a very good job explaining your position and voicing your opinion in a calm well spoken manner. So thank you for doing so !
There are multiple current members of the WAG who are active hunters and members of large hunting based org's. That doesn't seem to matter anyway so I'm not sure why I feel the need to correct anyone.
This thread and the comments in it are a perfect example of why hunters and hunting based org's struggle in these scenarios. Because the hunters' mentality is that it's too late...what's done is done and we can't change anything so why bother.
The groups we all despise are still there, hammering away and they always will be.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2018, 01:00:54 PM
One example is that USFWS told Congress that all of the wolves had been wormed...twice, which they had. However, it was the wrong medication for e. granulosus and the parasite remained active in the released wolves. There was no further testing data made available before release. Ed Bangs was fully aware of the parasite's existence in the original 66. A study by the U of ID in 2012 shows that anywhere from a minimum of 64-85% of captured grey wolves they tested were positive for this parasite, depending on the test area.
So, if you want to sit at the table and have smoke blown up your dark places, by all means, do. But it won't change the wolf plan and it won't change the influence peddling from the animal rights people to those in power. There's far too much political money at stake for real science to interfere.
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 10, 2018, 02:13:39 PM
The current role of Francine may be involving the wolf plan, but the larger theme of this thread is the need to increase and unify the voice of the hunting community. I think that is what jackelope was getting at.
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2018, 03:19:22 PM
Post by: ribka on January 10, 2018, 03:24:57 PM
I don't want to put words in jackelope's mouth, but I think he is talking big picture. Not just about the management of wolves in this state.
The current role of Francine may be involving the wolf plan, but the larger theme of this thread is the need to increase and unify the voice of the hunting community. I think that is what jackelope was getting at.
Its difficult to find a sportsmen's group who has a voice in this state. Already Member of RMEF mule deer foundation
Is this group worth supporting and sending in a donation?
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/hhc-pac.html
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2018, 03:35:55 PM
I don't want to put words in jackelope's mouth, but I think he is talking big picture. Not just about the management of wolves in this state.
The current role of Francine may be involving the wolf plan, but the larger theme of this thread is the need to increase and unify the voice of the hunting community. I think that is what jackelope was getting at.
Its difficult to find a sportsmen's group who has a voice in this state. Already Member of RMEF mule deer foundation
Is this group worth supporting and sending in a donation?
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/hhc-pac.html
Yes, as is Washingtonians for Wildlife.
I'm absolutely not talking about "only" wolf management. I'm talking about everything.
Post by: jackelope on January 10, 2018, 03:37:42 PM
I don't want to put words in jackelope's mouth, but I think he is talking big picture. Not just about the management of wolves in this state.
The current role of Francine may be involving the wolf plan, but the larger theme of this thread is the need to increase and unify the voice of the hunting community. I think that is what jackelope was getting at.
Jackpot...
Well let's see how long they drag their feet in replacing the "hunters" voice.
Any suggestions for a volunteer to replace that person? I predict nobody will want to volunteer...wait for it!!!
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2018, 04:07:15 PM
We need a trained person supported by a big .org
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on January 10, 2018, 04:15:03 PM
I personally don't relish how much the state is spending on her contract, especially with enforcement grossly underfunded and important programs for hunters and anglers on the chopping block. But having been deeply involved in this issue since 2014, I will go out on a limb and say we're lucky to have Francine working to bring diverse stakeholders to the table and moving forward. Including towards accepting lethal removals and eventually, some sort of proactive management through regulated hunts (something I fully support). Without Francine, I'm certain we'd be in a much worse and more expensive place right now, with radical out-of-state litigious groups like the Center for Biological Diversity holding greater influence.
I do very much believe that WDFW needs to do a better job of communicating exactly where this money is coming from, which is general fund appropriations from the legislature and special wildlife license plate revenue, NOT hunting and fishing license revenues. I've made that concern known to the Department, and hope it happens.
As a hunter, I've also been concerned about the lack of active and vocal sportsman's representation on the WAG, especially since Dan left. Nothing against the hunters still on that advisory group, but hunters need a more vocal voice, and some of the current hunting reps seem to want to stay quiet and allow other stakeholders to hold the spotlight.
The "white paper" that Washington Cattlemen’s Association, Cattle Producers of Washington, Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, Washington State Sheep Producers, Hunters Heritage Council and the Washington Farm Bureau produced this past November was a solid start towards reframing the dialogue in a more forward-looking direction, and I agree with most of its conclusions.
Some folks on this forum seem to prefer to rant that this is all a rigged game, that hunters are outnumbered, and we're better served commenting amongst ourselves on Internet threads instead of participating in the decision-making process. I understand why you might feel that way, but we have to sit at the table to eat. Especially when we ARE outnumbered. The ranchers know this, and are participating heavily and gaining concessions through it, even from hardline groups like HSUS. Some hunters may not like wolves, conservation orgs, or Washington's wolf management policy, but we do ourselves a disservice if we refuse to participate in the decision-making process.
The next two WAG meetings are slated to focus on hunter concerns, including gaining greater acceptance of those concerns from other stakeholders and beginning to outline post-recovery management. I'll be there. I hope other hunters are as well.
-Chase Gunnell
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 10, 2018, 05:09:51 PM
Thanks for reaching out to Francine, Jake. And for sharing this detailed information and thoughtful dialogue. It's refreshing compared to what some seem to prefer to share on this forum regarding such issues.
I personally don't relish how much the state is spending on her contract, especially with enforcement grossly underfunded and important programs for hunters and anglers on the chopping block. But having been deeply involved in this issue since 2014, I will go out on a limb and say we're lucky to have Francine working to bring diverse stakeholders to the table and moving forward. Including towards accepting lethal removals and eventually, some sort of proactive management through regulated hunts (something I fully support). Without Francine, I'm certain we'd be in a much worse and more expensive place right now, with radical out-of-state litigious groups like the Center for Biological Diversity holding greater influence.
I do very much believe that WDFW needs to do a better job of communicating exactly where this money is coming from, which is general fund appropriations from the legislature and special wildlife license plate revenue, NOT hunting and fishing license revenues. I've made that concern known to the Department, and hope it happens.
As a hunter, I've also been concerned about the lack of active and vocal sportsman's representative on the WAG, especially since Dan left. Nothing against the hunters still on that committee, but hunters need a more vocal voice, and some of the current hunting reps seem to want to stay quiet and allow other stakeholders to hold the spotlight.
The "white paper" that Washington Cattlemen’s Association, Cattle Producers of Washington, Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, Washington State Sheep Producers, Hunters Heritage Council and the Washington Farm Bureau produced this past November was a solid start towards reframing the dialogue in a more forward-looking direction, and I agree with most of its conclusions.
Some folks on this forum seem to prefer to rant that this is all a rigged game, that hunters are outnumbered, and we're better served commenting amongst ourselves on Internet threads instead of participating in the decision-making process. I understand why you might feel that way, but we have to sit at the table to eat. Especially when we ARE outnumbered. The ranchers know this, and are participating heavily and gaining concessions through it, even from hardline groups like HSUS. Some hunters may not like wolves, conservation orgs, or Washington's wolf management policy, but we do ourselves a disservice if we refuse to participate in the decision-making process.
The next two WAG meetings are slated to focus on hunter concerns, including gaining greater acceptance of those concerns from other stakeholders and beginning to outline post-recovery management. I'll be there. I hope other hunters are as well.
-Chase Gunnell
Extremely well stated. Thank you for sharing your information. This is exactly why I decided to email Francine in the first place and then ultimately shared the conversation here.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 10, 2018, 05:24:56 PM
The wrong volunteer would do us more harm than good, a single voice against a bunch of others they tend to get overwhelmed and make concessions then later wonder what just happened in there :dunno:While I agree the wrong person(s) can do more harm than good - I think a lot of folks are inflating what an advisory group composed of volunteers does...they have 0 authority to decide, agree to, or concede anything. Its simply information gathering.
We need a trained person supported by a big .org
Post by: KFhunter on January 10, 2018, 05:32:00 PM
The wrong volunteer would do us more harm than good, a single voice against a bunch of others they tend to get overwhelmed and make concessions then later wonder what just happened in there :dunno:While I agree the wrong person(s) can do more harm than good - I think a lot of folks are inflating what an advisory group composed of volunteers does...they have 0 authority to decide, agree to, or concede anything. Its simply information gathering.
We need a trained person supported by a big .org
:yeah: and this is all being printed out.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 10, 2018, 05:33:14 PM
It delays the inevitable lawsuits from some of their handlers.The wrong volunteer would do us more harm than good, a single voice against a bunch of others they tend to get overwhelmed and make concessions then later wonder what just happened in there :dunno:While I agree the wrong person(s) can do more harm than good - I think a lot of folks are inflating what an advisory group composed of volunteers does...they have 0 authority to decide, agree to, or concede anything. Its simply information gathering.
We need a trained person supported by a big .org
Post by: Special T on January 10, 2018, 10:10:08 PM
I went to the Washington for Wildlife Conservation & Hunters Hertiage council Meeting In Ellensburg @Bushcraft could probably explain them better than I but I will give you my Impression. Both are an organization of Organizations. It appears to me to be the embodyment of differing organizations banding together to petition the state on mutual issues of concern. I meet some past WDFW employees, and some people that have thier pulse on the whos who in Olympia.I don't want to put words in jackelope's mouth, but I think he is talking big picture. Not just about the management of wolves in this state.
The current role of Francine may be involving the wolf plan, but the larger theme of this thread is the need to increase and unify the voice of the hunting community. I think that is what jackelope was getting at.
Its difficult to find a sportsmen's group who has a voice in this state. Already Member of RMEF mule deer foundation
Is this group worth supporting and sending in a donation?
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/hhc-pac.html
Half the battle is knowing the players, knowing how the system works, whom are friendly to sports men (on both sides of the isle), and how to purwade those folks.
IMO is you want to do small part join an organization that belongs. If you are part of a sportsmen organization that is not a member petition them to find out about the WWC and Join. Www.w4wc.org
I think you can also join as an individual.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2018, 11:46:14 PM
I don't want to put words in jackelope's mouth, but I think he is talking big picture. Not just about the management of wolves in this state.
The current role of Francine may be involving the wolf plan, but the larger theme of this thread is the need to increase and unify the voice of the hunting community. I think that is what jackelope was getting at.
Jackpot...Well let's see how long they drag their feet in replacing the "hunters" voice.
Any suggestions for a volunteer to replace that person? I predict nobody will want to volunteer...wait for it!!!
Text sent
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 11, 2018, 05:35:49 AM
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 11, 2018, 01:31:00 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 11, 2018, 02:11:25 PM
Ms. Madden just seems to have too many variables in her scenario...Where are the practical solutions, or will this thing just keep getting dragged-out?
See post #64 ;)
Post by: ribka on January 11, 2018, 07:24:30 PM
Ms. Madden just seems to have too many variables in her scenario...Where are the practical solutions, or will this thing just keep getting dragged-out?
We've just stepped into bizarro world here on hunt WA. Anti -hunting organizations and eco terrorists are good and we must enter into meaningful and diverse non confrontational dialogue with them and sportsmen who contribute to wildlife conservation are evil
and every year in Washington we continue lose more and more fishing and hunting opportunities despite the fact we contribute millions to wildlife conservation
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 11, 2018, 08:09:43 PM
Ms. Madden just seems to have too many variables in her scenario...Where are the practical solutions, or will this thing just keep getting dragged-out?
We've just stepped into bizarro world here on hunt WA. Anti -hunting organizations and eco terrorists are good and we must enter into meaningful and diverse non confrontational dialogue with them and sportsmen who contribute to wildlife conservation are evil
and every year in Washington we continue lose more and more fishing and hunting opportunities despite the fact we contribute millions to wildlife conservation
It definitely seems like a "bad bye" and a "bad buy" :twocents: in bizarro-world to me!
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on January 11, 2018, 08:31:23 PM
Ms. Madden just seems to have too many variables in her scenario...Where are the practical solutions, or will this thing just keep getting dragged-out?
See post #64 ;)
Yup, I think ribka and the phool have this scheme summed-up pretty well. It's like the old slogan of shady politicians, "If you can't convince 'em, CONFUSE 'EM!"
Post by: ribka on January 11, 2018, 09:03:56 PM
So it is well established science by very experienced wildlife biologists and over 150 years science that is settled that the only way to control exploding wolf populations is through trapping and poisoning.
Do you support this ? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Thanks for reaching out to Francine, Jake. And for sharing this detailed information and thoughtful dialogue. It's refreshing compared to what some seem to prefer to share on this forum regarding such issues.
I personally don't relish how much the state is spending on her contract, especially with enforcement grossly underfunded and important programs for hunters and anglers on the chopping block. But having been deeply involved in this issue since 2014, I will go out on a limb and say we're lucky to have Francine working to bring diverse stakeholders to the table and moving forward. Including towards accepting lethal removals and eventually, some sort of proactive management through regulated hunts (something I fully support). Without Francine, I'm certain we'd be in a much worse and more expensive place right now, with radical out-of-state litigious groups like the Center for Biological Diversity holding greater influence.
I do very much believe that WDFW needs to do a better job of communicating exactly where this money is coming from, which is general fund appropriations from the legislature and special wildlife license plate revenue, NOT hunting and fishing license revenues. I've made that concern known to the Department, and hope it happens.
As a hunter, I've also been concerned about the lack of active and vocal sportsman's representation on the WAG, especially since Dan left. Nothing against the hunters still on that advisory group, but hunters need a more vocal voice, and some of the current hunting reps seem to want to stay quiet and allow other stakeholders to hold the spotlight.
The "white paper" that Washington Cattlemen’s Association, Cattle Producers of Washington, Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, Washington State Sheep Producers, Hunters Heritage Council and the Washington Farm Bureau produced this past November was a solid start towards reframing the dialogue in a more forward-looking direction, and I agree with most of its conclusions.
Some folks on this forum seem to prefer to rant that this is all a rigged game, that hunters are outnumbered, and we're better served commenting amongst ourselves on Internet threads instead of participating in the decision-making process. I understand why you might feel that way, but we have to sit at the table to eat. Especially when we ARE outnumbered. The ranchers know this, and are participating heavily and gaining concessions through it, even from hardline groups like HSUS. Some hunters may not like wolves, conservation orgs, or Washington's wolf management policy, but we do ourselves a disservice if we refuse to participate in the decision-making process.
The next two WAG meetings are slated to focus on hunter concerns, including gaining greater acceptance of those concerns from other stakeholders and beginning to outline post-recovery management. I'll be there. I hope other hunters are as well.
-Chase Gunnell
Post by: wolfbait on January 14, 2018, 09:14:13 PM
http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit#Unholy%20Alliances
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2018, 09:53:41 PM
Unholy Alliances: The danger of alignment with environmental and anti hunting groupsThis article is garbage written by guys who are clueless. Nearly all of IDFGs senior leaders are big hunters...and I would bet 95% or more of all their employees are hunters. Get a clue.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit#Unholy%20Alliances
Post by: wolfbait on January 15, 2018, 07:56:34 AM
Unholy Alliances: The danger of alignment with environmental and anti hunting groupsThis article is garbage written by guys who are clueless. Nearly all of IDFGs senior leaders are big hunters...and I would bet 95% or more of all their employees are hunters. Get a clue.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit#Unholy%20Alliances
"What are the dangers of bringing in environmental groups to fund state Fish and Game agencies? California is a great example of this “slippery slope.” Once environmental and anti-hunting groups began to fund the CA agency they eventually were able to influence and have direct management over it. Examples were changing its agencies name away from ‘Fish and Game” to satisfy non-hunters, anti-hunters and environmentalists. Eliminating predator hunting and use of lead ammo has occurred in CA. States like Florida and Washington state lost the ability to use dogs to hunt bears and Oregon Hunters are frustrated because they cannot hunt cougars. Supporting radicalized native ecosystem religion which suggests returning the land, fish and wildlife back to pre Columbian days. Most environmental groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and some in IDFG actively support and are currently implementing some of these programs." Read More @
http://idahoforwildlife.com/index.php/idfg-wildlife-summit#Unholy%20Alliances
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Idahoh-have you read WDFW's thirty year plan?
Post by: elkfins on January 17, 2018, 12:38:24 PM
I wouldn't trust her as far as my 80 year old father could throw Micheal Bennett.
Post by: ribka on January 18, 2018, 01:23:31 PM
After reading her very well laid out and thoughtful responses, it is very clear to me that she is well trained in the art of "lip service".
I wouldn't trust her as far as my 80 year old father could throw Micheal Bennett.
Her response reads like the fine print at the end of your warranty and same empty platitudes on her old web site and the same crap is found on CNW's web site
Kudos to your father