Post by: bearpaw on December 17, 2018, 08:35:51 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 17, 2018, 08:39:15 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 17, 2018, 08:42:47 AM
Post by: KFhunter on December 17, 2018, 08:45:25 AM
Post by: jackelope on December 17, 2018, 08:46:27 AM
Coming from a guy lacking in the experience department, what is entailed in forcing WDFW to properly manage predators? I guess what I mean is....how does that happen??
Post by: boneaddict on December 17, 2018, 08:49:37 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 17, 2018, 08:54:46 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 17, 2018, 08:58:17 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on December 17, 2018, 09:04:00 AM
Post by: birddogdad on December 17, 2018, 09:12:56 AM
Post by: cougforester on December 17, 2018, 09:22:44 AM
Post by: Jake Dogfish on December 17, 2018, 09:28:21 AM
Post by: Bushcraft on December 17, 2018, 09:33:33 AM
Post by: Birdguy on December 17, 2018, 09:34:25 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on December 17, 2018, 09:48:42 AM
Good deal, hoping it works out.
All WDFW would have to do is allow "us" to bait bear, run hounds and use leg hold traps again. Sportsmen would also gladly shoot seals, cormorants etc. also-free of charge, but highly doubt that sensible route would ever be used again :rolleyes:
Post by: HighCountryHunter88 on December 17, 2018, 10:00:31 AM
Good deal, hoping it works out.
All WDFW would have to do is allow "us" to bait bear, run hounds and use leg hold traps again. Sportsmen would also gladly shoot seals, cormorants etc. also-free of charge, but highly doubt that sensible route would ever be used again :rolleyes:
except wdfw doesnt have the authority to grant us those options, it was voted on not a decision made by wdfw.
Post by: singleshot12 on December 17, 2018, 10:03:11 AM
The city folks who don't hunt and fish and buy a license should have no say in the matter! just sayin
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 17, 2018, 10:14:04 AM
They were/are given the ability to provide special permits under exemptions in the RCWGood deal, hoping it works out.
All WDFW would have to do is allow "us" to bait bear, run hounds and use leg hold traps again. Sportsmen would also gladly shoot seals, cormorants etc. also-free of charge, but highly doubt that sensible route would ever be used again :rolleyes:
except wdfw doesnt have the authority to grant us those options, it was voted on not a decision made by wdfw.
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 17, 2018, 10:25:01 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2018, 10:35:17 AM
A lawsuit like this will (if successful) force the dept. into either doing something about the predators themselves or forcing them to allow hunters to do it in a more successful way.Whether that be more ways *loosening the restrictions), longer periods, or more quota would be the question.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 17, 2018, 11:41:49 AM
This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:
I certainly hope that it works, we know that the leaf licker groups have done there share of lawsuits.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 17, 2018, 11:48:13 AM
Also legislature can change the rcw to allow it. Wdfw could have some major pull with leg if they would provide support for it and biology to support it also. :twocents:They were/are given the ability to provide special permits under exemptions in the RCWGood deal, hoping it works out.
All WDFW would have to do is allow "us" to bait bear, run hounds and use leg hold traps again. Sportsmen would also gladly shoot seals, cormorants etc. also-free of charge, but highly doubt that sensible route would ever be used again :rolleyes:
except wdfw doesnt have the authority to grant us those options, it was voted on not a decision made by wdfw.
Post by: KFhunter on December 17, 2018, 11:51:37 AM
The biggest thing that would help is WDFW themselves getting behind the hunters on this issue.At this time they are just doing as the Gov. and the masses both of which have no clue.
A lawsuit like this will (if successful) force the dept. into either doing something about the predators themselves or forcing them to allow hunters to do it in a more successful way.Whether that be more ways *loosening the restrictions), longer periods, or more quota would be the question.
Even a loss would be a win as it would highlight a lot of issues at the department and put it in the spotlight, maybe even kick off a state wide if not national conversation.
If nothing else it's going to be a whirlwind, all the so called "conservation" groups, will be sending in gobs of money to hire big time lawyers to fight it.
Post by: WSU on December 17, 2018, 11:51:55 AM
Post by: KFhunter on December 17, 2018, 11:53:16 AM
Also legislature can change the rcw to allow it. Wdfw could have some major pull with leg if they would provide support for it and biology to support it also. :twocents:They were/are given the ability to provide special permits under exemptions in the RCWGood deal, hoping it works out.
All WDFW would have to do is allow "us" to bait bear, run hounds and use leg hold traps again. Sportsmen would also gladly shoot seals, cormorants etc. also-free of charge, but highly doubt that sensible route would ever be used again :rolleyes:
except wdfw doesnt have the authority to grant us those options, it was voted on not a decision made by wdfw.
:yeah:
I sure as heck ain't paying $30 for vehicle tags if you'all remember how long that voter initiative lasted.
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_License_Tab_Fees,_Initiative_776_(2002)
now they're doing it again ($30 car tabs) because the 2002 initiative didn't stick around long.
The hounds,baiting, foothold traps initiative needs to go away, there just isn't an incentive to get rid of it, unlike I-776
Post by: WSU on December 17, 2018, 11:53:47 AM
The biggest thing that would help is WDFW themselves getting behind the hunters on this issue.At this time they are just doing as the Gov. and the masses both of which have no clue.
A lawsuit like this will (if successful) force the dept. into either doing something about the predators themselves or forcing them to allow hunters to do it in a more successful way.Whether that be more ways *loosening the restrictions), longer periods, or more quota would be the question.
Even a loss would be a win as it would highlight a lot of issues at the department and put it in the spotlight, maybe even kick off a state wide if not national conversation.
If nothing else it's going to be a whirlwind, all the so called "conservation" groups, will be sending in gobs of money to hire big time lawyers to fight it.
A loss may very well not be a win and could damage future efforts. WDFW is averse to lawsuits, but is much more likely to act in the face of a potential lawsuit when they think, or in this case know, that they'll win. If they've already won once, they have no reason to avoid the court battle.
Post by: KFhunter on December 17, 2018, 12:11:38 PM
The biggest thing that would help is WDFW themselves getting behind the hunters on this issue.At this time they are just doing as the Gov. and the masses both of which have no clue.
A lawsuit like this will (if successful) force the dept. into either doing something about the predators themselves or forcing them to allow hunters to do it in a more successful way.Whether that be more ways *loosening the restrictions), longer periods, or more quota would be the question.
Even a loss would be a win as it would highlight a lot of issues at the department and put it in the spotlight, maybe even kick off a state wide if not national conversation.
If nothing else it's going to be a whirlwind, all the so called "conservation" groups, will be sending in gobs of money to hire big time lawyers to fight it.
A loss may very well not be a win and could damage future efforts. WDFW is averse to lawsuits, but is much more likely to act in the face of a potential lawsuit when they think, or in this case know, that they'll win. If they've already won once, they have no reason to avoid the court battle.
What's to loose and how could it get (much) worse? IMO the risk of 'things getting worse' isn't high enough of a risk to not move forward with the chance at improvement.
I trust your knowledge in these matters so please if you would enlighten us on how you see things might get worse? I can see a budget strain if a court mandates a new predator/prey study but one is already ongoing now, maybe with the courts involvement it might not be skewed one side or the other like the WSU disgraced professor study.
Post by: WSU on December 17, 2018, 12:14:52 PM
But, if there is some issue they are afraid that they may potentially get sued over, they act with more caution if they think it may have merit. Once they are confident they will win, they will forge ahead even in the face of threatened litigation.
Post by: kellama2001 on December 17, 2018, 12:19:33 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 17, 2018, 12:26:50 PM
He's been found to be biased and untruthful, manipulating studies to protect predators. WDFW implemented many policies regarding predators based on WSU large carnivore study's from WSU.
Here is a letter from WSU apologizing for Weilgus whom was later fired from WSU, yet his flawed study's continue to to hold sway at WDFW.
https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/
One example would be our Cougar plan, all based on Weilgus and his acolytes.
https://news.wsu.edu/2012/09/25/wsu-research-results-in-new-management-plan/
I do not think it would be hard to show unprofessional bias in these studies to the court, especially when WSU itself has apologized for it.
Post by: suga on December 17, 2018, 12:42:04 PM
Tagging so action can be taken when the time comesX2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on December 17, 2018, 12:47:27 PM
One thing I would like is WDFW to toss out any and all policy decisions based on Weilgus's study's while at WSU.
He's been found to be biased and untruthful, manipulating studies to protect predators. WDFW implemented many policies regarding predators based on WSU large carnivore study's from WSU.
Here is a letter from WSU apologizing for Weilgus whom was later fired from WSU, yet his flawed study's continue to to hold sway at WDFW.
https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/
One example would be our Cougar plan, all based on Weilgus and his acolytes.
https://news.wsu.edu/2012/09/25/wsu-research-results-in-new-management-plan/
I do not think it would be hard to show unprofessional bias in these studies to the court, especially when WSU itself has apologized for it.
The problem is a court likely isn't going to decide which scientific study it believes and which one it doesn't. Courts don't substitute their judgment for that of the state agency tasked with management. The law requires the court to defer to the expertise of the agency. Basically, if the agency has a somewhat rational basis for their actions, the court will rule in their favor.
Post by: WSU on December 17, 2018, 12:53:21 PM
Post by: tlbradford on December 17, 2018, 01:08:44 PM
The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling. Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.
Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.
Post by: grundy53 on December 17, 2018, 01:11:36 PM
So were $30 tabs. The state quickly found a way around that referendum...Good deal, hoping it works out.
All WDFW would have to do is allow "us" to bait bear, run hounds and use leg hold traps again. Sportsmen would also gladly shoot seals, cormorants etc. also-free of charge, but highly doubt that sensible route would ever be used again :rolleyes:
except wdfw doesnt have the authority to grant us those options, it was voted on not a decision made by wdfw.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: bbarnes on December 17, 2018, 01:19:42 PM
Post by: whacker1 on December 17, 2018, 01:22:34 PM
The courts decide this case because they will need to determine if the WDFW is managing the predators as mandated by the legislature. If it is not, then they will require corrective actions. How those corrective actions are determined and implemented is the tough issue. Also, the measuring stick the court would use to determine if the department is deficient is difficult as well.
The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling. Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.
Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.
I think this is pretty well said. I don't see our WA judges taking a strong position to make dramatic change unless there is a boat load of good/defining evidence that shows that they are not doing what the WAC & RCW say they are supposed to be doing. I don't know enough to weigh in on one direction or another, but I have watched the court be unwilling to weigh in on lots of other subjects.
Post by: WSU on December 17, 2018, 01:22:58 PM
The courts decide this case because they will need to determine if the WDFW is managing the predators as mandated by the legislature. If it is not, then they will require corrective actions. How those corrective actions are determined and implemented is the tough issue. Also, the measuring stick the court would use to determine if the department is deficient is difficult as well.
The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling. Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.
Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.
Exactly what is WDFW's legislative mandate for managing the predators?
Post by: Bushcraft on December 17, 2018, 01:25:11 PM
One thing I would like is WDFW to toss out any and all policy decisions based on Weilgus's study's while at WSU.
He's been found to be biased and untruthful, manipulating studies to protect predators. WDFW implemented many policies regarding predators based on WSU large carnivore study's from WSU.
Here is a letter from WSU apologizing for Weilgus whom was later fired from WSU, yet his flawed study's continue to to hold sway at WDFW.
https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/
One example would be our Cougar plan, all based on Weilgus and his acolytes.
https://news.wsu.edu/2012/09/25/wsu-research-results-in-new-management-plan/
I do not think it would be hard to show unprofessional bias in these studies to the court, especially when WSU itself has apologized for it.
The problem is a court likely isn't going to decide which scientific study it believes and which one it doesn't. Courts don't substitute their judgment for that of the state agency tasked with management. The law requires the court to defer to the expertise of the agency. Basically, if the agency has a somewhat rational basis for their actions, the court will rule in their favor.
Court: "So, Mr. Fox, what is your professional opinion with regard to closing the chicken coop at night? Is doing so an effective deterrent against predators that want to kill and eat chickens?"
Mr. Fox (speaking on behalf of Washington Department of Chicken Production): "If it please the court, we present a study written by Professor Wile E. Coyote and sponsored by The Northwest Center for Anti-Poultry Alliance that illustrates shutting chicken coop doors doesn't deter predation at night. Or ever really. Shutting the chicken coop door actually increases predation. Never mind that the study that we base our agency's Open Door Chicken Coop Protection Policy on was based on wildly gerrymandered data that has been proven demonstrably false by actual scientists, and that we threaten the employment and/or future careers of any agency employees that speak out against it."
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on December 17, 2018, 04:40:30 PM
Post by: Humptulips on December 17, 2018, 05:25:23 PM
Post by: jasnt on December 17, 2018, 05:49:58 PM
Post by: RB on December 17, 2018, 05:51:29 PM
Post by: Special T on December 17, 2018, 05:55:34 PM
Only thing I ask for here is how do we support it in social media (court of public opinion, the other branch of government) for those that want facts. I have friends on both sides of the isle and like to know where to get good reliable data to show either party they are right, or wrong. Thanks
Perhaps as this thing progresses we need to spread the word, and raise some funds. Im very curious to see how this works out. Im guessing some body must have some detailed compelling information to bother suing the department. :twocents:
Post by: BNAElkhntr on December 17, 2018, 06:35:23 PM
Post by: Caseyd on December 17, 2018, 06:39:08 PM
The courts decide this case because they will need to determine if the WDFW is managing the predators as mandated by the legislature. If it is not, then they will require corrective actions. How those corrective actions are determined and implemented is the tough issue. Also, the measuring stick the court would use to determine if the department is deficient is difficult as well.
The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling. Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.
Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.
Exactly what is WDFW's legislative mandate for managing the predators?
Opposite
If they aren’t controlling them aggressively then it makes it hard to do their mandated jobs:
Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife
Provide sustainable fishing, hunting, and other wildlife-related recreational and commercial experiences
Promote a healthy economy, protect community character, maintain an overall high quality of life, and deliver high-quality customer service
Build an effective and efficient organization by supporting our workforce, improving business processes, and investing in technology
I’m not privy to any information regarding the lawsuit but i imagine there are plenty of past and a few current bio’s who would link our current state of habitat to the WDFW not doing their part
Post by: idahohuntr on December 17, 2018, 06:41:53 PM
This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
Post by: tlbradford on December 17, 2018, 09:23:17 PM
The courts decide this case because they will need to determine if the WDFW is managing the predators as mandated by the legislature. If it is not, then they will require corrective actions. How those corrective actions are determined and implemented is the tough issue. Also, the measuring stick the court would use to determine if the department is deficient is difficult as well.
The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling. Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.
Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.
Exactly what is WDFW's legislative mandate for managing the predators?
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
WDFW Game Management Plan is attached Read introduction and page 101 starts black bear management and leads into cougars
Post by: Twispriver on December 18, 2018, 12:15:17 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 18, 2018, 12:16:33 AM
The courts decide this case because they will need to determine if the WDFW is managing the predators as mandated by the legislature. If it is not, then they will require corrective actions. How those corrective actions are determined and implemented is the tough issue. Also, the measuring stick the court would use to determine if the department is deficient is difficult as well.
The de facto response is typically there is not enough info to make a determination and further studies and testimony need to be completed prior to making a ruling. Therefore, everythign will stay as is until this is completed and a determination can be made.
Pretty much the wolf management decisions making in reverse.
Exactly what is WDFW's legislative mandate for managing the predators?
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
WDFW Game Management Plan is attached Read introduction and page 101 starts black bear management and leads into cougars
Thanks for posting that, I do not feel like WDFW is fulfilling the stipulations of the RCW. I think reasonable arguments can be made in a lawsuit based on this RCW and other actions by WDFW.
Another questionable action, the commission approved an increase in cougar permits, that was vetoed by Governor Inslee, didn't that veto and failure to increase cougar quotas comply with the RCW?
Moose populations are plummeting, does the failure of WDFW to monitor moose numbers and wolf impacts follow the language of the RCW?
Does allowing predators to decimate the last remaining caribou herd in the lower 48, an endangered specie, fullfill the intent of the RCW?
I think these and probably numerous other issues could be valid points in a lawsuit.
Post by: bearpaw on December 18, 2018, 12:21:47 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 18, 2018, 12:31:25 AM
Post by: bowhunterforever on December 18, 2018, 01:00:14 AM
Post by: Bigshooter on December 18, 2018, 01:25:54 AM
Post by: wolfbait on December 18, 2018, 04:30:22 AM
I'm told that the lawsuit will need support from hunters, the idea is to start building support now. I am not at liberty to disclose any specifics, but was asked to share this with the HW community so we can start building support. I saw the mention of a "Go Fund Me", that might be a good idea, there are p probably many other good ideas just waiting to be mentioned.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Dale. :tup:
This should be shared with ranchers, and general public as many feel the same about the over population of cougars, bears and wolves.
Where they can donate to support this lawsuit etc..
Talking to people from eight years ago, their attitudes have changed 180, many in rural communities and those who visit don't go hiking etc. without packing. Their concern of wolf and cougar dangers have been realized.
WDFW lack of predator management has many thinking the agency is broken, and needs a fix.
WDFW have made it perfectly clear they have no intentions of managing the ungulates for hunter harvest, predation on livestock show this as they try their hardest to slow walk any true wolf control actions.
Like wolves, cougars were once a rare sighting, now cougar sightings are talked about on a regular basis, in peoples yards, at the outskirts of town, etc., this should not be happening. Every year the prey base for these predators gets smaller, and as the herds drop into the lower elevations come snow time so do the predators. It would be a shame to have to wait until several people are mauled by the assortment of over populated predators before something is done.
At what point do the people who have to deal with uncontrolled predators have a say?
Post by: singleshot12 on December 18, 2018, 04:56:33 AM
If a tribe or multiple tribes bring a lawsuit showing loss of resource due to predator overpopulation, with the science to back it up, then maybe I could see something like this gaining traction. Otherwise I'll believe it when I see it.
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on December 23, 2018, 04:22:48 PM
Post by: Romeo 2-6 on December 24, 2018, 04:29:53 PM
Requires a legislative change. Citizen initiatives banned those activities. WDFW has NO authority to repeal an initiative.Good deal, hoping it works out.
All WDFW would have to do is allow "us" to bait bear, run hounds and use leg hold traps again. Sportsmen would also gladly shoot seals, cormorants etc. also-free of charge, but highly doubt that sensible route would ever be used again :rolleyes:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Tbar on December 24, 2018, 04:40:12 PM
:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
Post by: Limhangerslayer on December 24, 2018, 04:40:47 PM
One thing I would like is WDFW to toss out any and all policy decisions based on Weilgus's study's while at WSU.kinda how the department allows us to take 5-6 cats out of an almost 1000sq. Mile area. About one for every 100,000 acres!
He's been found to be biased and untruthful, manipulating studies to protect predators. WDFW implemented many policies regarding predators based on WSU large carnivore study's from WSU.
Here is a letter from WSU apologizing for Weilgus whom was later fired from WSU, yet his flawed study's continue to to hold sway at WDFW.
https://news.wsu.edu/2016/08/31/wsu-issues-statement-clarifying-comments-profanity-peak-wolf-pack/
One example would be our Cougar plan, all based on Weilgus and his acolytes.
https://news.wsu.edu/2012/09/25/wsu-research-results-in-new-management-plan/
I do not think it would be hard to show unprofessional bias in these studies to the court, especially when WSU itself has apologized for it.
Post by: bearpaw on December 24, 2018, 08:09:31 PM
:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Post by: ljsommer on December 24, 2018, 08:13:46 PM
I am all for this: let's get a handle on this situation.
Post by: KFhunter on December 24, 2018, 08:23:08 PM
Passed a hunter in my unit today who told me I should just go back to my truck if I don't plan on chasing cats: He'd heard three unique cats during daylight hours.
I am all for this: let's get a handle on this situation.
This thread may be of interest to you.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,185537.0.html
Post by: Tbar on December 24, 2018, 09:55:46 PM
Positive changes like Kretz's hero bill last year? He paved the way for predator expansion and his constituents will likely benefit little to none. If not "worded" correctly a lawsuit could set similar precedence. Also if you are following the trend of the agency it paints a picture of technical experts that'll be called upon to help decide litigation.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Post by: huntnphool on December 24, 2018, 11:27:44 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 26, 2018, 07:41:55 PM
Positive changes like Kretz's hero bill last year? He paved the way for predator expansion and his constituents will likely benefit little to none. If not "worded" correctly a lawsuit could set similar precedence. Also if you are following the trend of the agency it paints a picture of technical experts that'll be called upon to help decide litigation.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
I know Kretz personally, he's a good guy doing a great job representing the values of the the people who vote him into office. The trend of WDFW seems to be that of predator lovers with little care for the animals that hunters used to buy licenses to pursue! Getting back to the lawsuit, I'll leave that up to the folks in the drivers seat. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 26, 2018, 08:14:01 PM
Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Post by: mfswallace on December 26, 2018, 08:34:24 PM
Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
You mean like the scam of the ESA or any other liberal environmentalists green predator driven agendas??
Post by: bearpaw on December 26, 2018, 08:35:12 PM
Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Keep an eye on the Capitol Press, I heard there may be mention there soon. ;)
Post by: idahohuntr on December 26, 2018, 08:38:10 PM
:tup:Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Keep an eye on the Capitol Press, I heard there may be mention there soon. ;)
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 11:14:04 AM
This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:
More info from lawsuit central!
It's sounding like needed funding to make this lawsuit happen is coming together. It is still requested that the source of the lawsuit remain anonymous, but I think I can say there is a lot of excitement in Washington's hunting fraternity that the prospect exists that finally there is going to be an attempt to hold WDFW's feet to the fire over their purposeful mismanagement of predators in Washington!
I have to wonder:
Mismanagement has resulted in the loss of herds and the loss of economics resulting from the loss of hunting opportunity? As word of this gets out, I have to wonder how many other interest groups will want to be a part of this lawsuit. What about cattle and sheep producers, what about motels and quick stops in rural communities, what about chambers of commerce in rural communities where hunters are no longer coming and bringing their hunting dollars, what about guide services such as my own business which has lost revenue as a result of poor predator management decisions. I'm just thinking out loud, but I have to wonder if businesses can sign onto this lawsuit, can chambers of commerce sign on, can other interest groups such as fishermen sign on, next time I speak with someone involved I'll have to ask that question.
Additional Funding:
There may be some opportunities to purchase items soon whereby a percentage of the purchase will be sent to help fund the lawsuit, I've been told the vendor will present this soon on the forum. I'm wondering if other vendors might be willing to offer items and send a p-ercentage to help fund the lawsuit. I certainly believe this is our last best chance to change the course of WDFW predator management, I might even consider throwing in a guided predator hunt in Idaho (where predator management happens) to help fund this lawsuit. I wonder if a "Go Fund Me Page" might help, I'm just floating ideas at this point?
How do you hunters think we can get the word out and help fund this lawsuit?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 27, 2018, 11:40:09 AM
Post by: cavemann on December 27, 2018, 12:03:13 PM
Post by: WSU on December 27, 2018, 12:04:08 PM
From what I've seen, raising any meaningful amount of money (in legal fee terms, like $50K) is almost impossible. I've seen it with fisheries issues. People are more than happy to spend $40K on a boat, buy $400 rods, and spend $300 a day on boat fuel, but getting them to donate more than $100 is about like getting them to donate a child. Hopefully hunters are more willing to spend money on this than fisherman!
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 12:19:10 PM
I wish you luck in funding this.
From what I've seen, raising any meaningful amount of money (in legal fee terms, like $50K) is almost impossible. I've seen it with fisheries issues. People are more than happy to spend $40K on a boat, buy $400 rods, and spend $300 a day on boat fuel, but getting them to donate more than $100 is about like getting them to donate a child. Hopefully hunters are more willing to spend money on this than fisherman!
First I know exactly what you mean about getting people to part with their money. However, this is different, people are mad as hell at WDFW, people want to show WDFW that they work for us, not us working for them!
I'm one resident in a state with a couple hundred thousand hunters. I'll pledge $500 right now and follow up with the donation when the time comes, if the suit looks good when announced I may throw in a $5000 guided lion hunt to help benefit the lawsuit. Lets see if there is support, is anyone else willing to make a small pledge at this time provided the lawsuit is filed and happens? Every $10 or $20 pledge will add up!
Post by: Southpole on December 27, 2018, 12:21:47 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 12:22:20 PM
to me this is a classic opportunity for people to put their money where their mouths are. Something has to happen and someone has to get the ball rolling. This lawsuit whether it is successful or not can send a unified message about predator management, control and fears. Not every idea or action is going to be the one that works, but many times we can look back to one that got the ball rolling... Looking forward to an opportunity to contribute and hopefully those on hear with concerns followed by pages and pages of threads will show up where it counts when this kicks off.
Thank you, I much prefer optimism! :tup: :IBCOOL:
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 12:23:37 PM
I'm in, where do I send the money?
Don't send any money yet. Just make a pledge that when the lawsuit is announced how much you might be willing to send if the suit sounds good to you?
Post by: Rainier10 on December 27, 2018, 12:47:48 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 27, 2018, 02:50:04 PM
Exactly like that...lawyers line their pockets and nothing gets accomplished.Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
You mean like the scam of the ESA or any other liberal environmentalists green predator driven agendas??
I'm still curious to see some facts about this purported lawsuit - what it will accomplish and how they think it will be successful.
Post by: bigtex on December 27, 2018, 02:50:14 PM
People are mad as hell over fisheries issues as well.I wish you luck in funding this.
From what I've seen, raising any meaningful amount of money (in legal fee terms, like $50K) is almost impossible. I've seen it with fisheries issues. People are more than happy to spend $40K on a boat, buy $400 rods, and spend $300 a day on boat fuel, but getting them to donate more than $100 is about like getting them to donate a child. Hopefully hunters are more willing to spend money on this than fisherman!
First I know exactly what you mean about getting people to part with their money. However, this is different, people are mad as hell at WDFW, people want to show WDFW that they work for us, not us working for them!
I'm one resident in a state with a couple hundred thousand hunters. I'll pledge $500 right now and follow up with the donation when the time comes, if the suit looks good when announced I may throw in a $5000 guided lion hunt to help benefit the lawsuit. Lets see if there is support, is anyone else willing to make a small pledge at this time provided the lawsuit is filed and happens? Every $10 or $20 pledge will add up!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 02:53:41 PM
People are mad as hell over fisheries issues as well.I wish you luck in funding this.
From what I've seen, raising any meaningful amount of money (in legal fee terms, like $50K) is almost impossible. I've seen it with fisheries issues. People are more than happy to spend $40K on a boat, buy $400 rods, and spend $300 a day on boat fuel, but getting them to donate more than $100 is about like getting them to donate a child. Hopefully hunters are more willing to spend money on this than fisherman!
First I know exactly what you mean about getting people to part with their money. However, this is different, people are mad as hell at WDFW, people want to show WDFW that they work for us, not us working for them!
I'm one resident in a state with a couple hundred thousand hunters. I'll pledge $500 right now and follow up with the donation when the time comes, if the suit looks good when announced I may throw in a $5000 guided lion hunt to help benefit the lawsuit. Lets see if there is support, is anyone else willing to make a small pledge at this time provided the lawsuit is filed and happens? Every $10 or $20 pledge will add up!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Agreed, WDFW is not making many friends of hunters and fishers.
Post by: Tbar on December 27, 2018, 03:05:00 PM
And hunters and fishers are not making many friends with hunters and fishers. Fragmented and divided with the exception of hhc. Most major conservation(hunting) NGOs will stand down and a few will side with the wdfw.People are mad as hell over fisheries issues as well.I wish you luck in funding this.
From what I've seen, raising any meaningful amount of money (in legal fee terms, like $50K) is almost impossible. I've seen it with fisheries issues. People are more than happy to spend $40K on a boat, buy $400 rods, and spend $300 a day on boat fuel, but getting them to donate more than $100 is about like getting them to donate a child. Hopefully hunters are more willing to spend money on this than fisherman!
First I know exactly what you mean about getting people to part with their money. However, this is different, people are mad as hell at WDFW, people want to show WDFW that they work for us, not us working for them!
I'm one resident in a state with a couple hundred thousand hunters. I'll pledge $500 right now and follow up with the donation when the time comes, if the suit looks good when announced I may throw in a $5000 guided lion hunt to help benefit the lawsuit. Lets see if there is support, is anyone else willing to make a small pledge at this time provided the lawsuit is filed and happens? Every $10 or $20 pledge will add up!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Agreed, WDFW is not making many friends of hunters and fishers.
Post by: Tbar on December 27, 2018, 03:13:10 PM
The Capitol Press? This is an ag industry media outlet correct? That referred to elk as an invasive species correct? The Capitol Press has not been an advocate of wildlife in general, and now they are promoting a lawsuit to support ungulate herd recovery? I can't wait to read! Sounds great that industry is supporting wildlife!Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Keep an eye on the Capitol Press, I heard there may be mention there soon. ;)
:tup: :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 03:16:28 PM
The Capitol Press? This is an ag industry media outlet correct? That referred to elk as an invasive species correct? The Capitol Press has not been an advocate of wildlife in general, and now they are promoting a lawsuit to support ungulate herd recovery? I can't wait to read! Sounds great that industry is supporting wildlife!Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Keep an eye on the Capitol Press, I heard there may be mention there soon. ;)
:tup: :tup:
Awesome, thanks for your insight, maybe cattle and sheep producers will sign on?
Post by: jackelope on December 27, 2018, 03:33:17 PM
The Capitol Press? This is an ag industry media outlet correct? That referred to elk as an invasive species correct? The Capitol Press has not been an advocate of wildlife in general, and now they are promoting a lawsuit to support ungulate herd recovery? I can't wait to read! Sounds great that industry is supporting wildlife!Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Keep an eye on the Capitol Press, I heard there may be mention there soon. ;)
:tup: :tup:
If the Capital Press is supporting it, I bet it's most likely in support of predator management in terms of livestock depredation, not so much increasing ungulate recovery. It's just a byproduct of increased predator management.
Thoughts?
Post by: Tbar on December 27, 2018, 03:37:35 PM
Post by: WSU on December 27, 2018, 03:48:25 PM
Another interesting element would be the WAG, from a process standpoint the court would be in an odd spot. Nearly every special interest group is working together for a common solution? Is industry going to deviate from the process to pursue relief as ordered by the court? When will they state the intent of the lawsuit to garner support?
Two totally separate processes and they won't change anyone or any entity's right to file a legal challenge. That said, WDFW will undoubtedly point to the WAG and collaboration with the interest groups to show that its actions were reasonable.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 27, 2018, 04:01:00 PM
That's kind of my thought. They may be wanting to decrease predators but they don't want more ungulates competing for the same food that their livestock needs.The Capitol Press? This is an ag industry media outlet correct? That referred to elk as an invasive species correct? The Capitol Press has not been an advocate of wildlife in general, and now they are promoting a lawsuit to support ungulate herd recovery? I can't wait to read! Sounds great that industry is supporting wildlife!Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Keep an eye on the Capitol Press, I heard there may be mention there soon. ;)
:tup: :tup:
If the Capital Press is supporting it, I bet it's most likely in support of predator management in terms of livestock depredation, not so much increasing ungulate recovery. It's just a byproduct of increased predator management.
Thoughts?
Post by: idahohuntr on December 27, 2018, 04:04:17 PM
I continue to withhold judgement until more details are known...but I don't get warm fuzzies if big ag is behind the lawsuit. At best there is a narrow overlap where a byproduct of their efforts might be beneficial to sportsmen. However, on a host of issues most farm bureau and ag industry folks are not sportsmen friendly. I'm sure they would be happy to take sportsmen's hard earned money and use us as a pawn in their game though.The Capitol Press? This is an ag industry media outlet correct? That referred to elk as an invasive species correct? The Capitol Press has not been an advocate of wildlife in general, and now they are promoting a lawsuit to support ungulate herd recovery? I can't wait to read! Sounds great that industry is supporting wildlife!Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Keep an eye on the Capitol Press, I heard there may be mention there soon. ;)
:tup: :tup:
If the Capital Press is supporting it, I bet it's most likely in support of predator management in terms of livestock depredation, not so much increasing ungulate recovery. It's just a byproduct of increased predator management.
Thoughts?
Post by: KFhunter on December 27, 2018, 04:07:30 PM
I continue to withhold judgement until more details are known...but I don't get warm fuzzies if big ag is behind the lawsuit. At best there is a narrow overlap where a byproduct of their efforts might be beneficial to sportsmen. However, on a host of issues most farm bureau and ag industry folks are not sportsmen friendly. I'm sure they would be happy to take sportsmen's hard earned money and use us as a pawn in their game though.
Dude, they could be your frienenemy.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 27, 2018, 04:11:36 PM
Post by: JeffRaines on December 27, 2018, 04:16:03 PM
:sry:
Post by: jackelope on December 27, 2018, 04:16:56 PM
That's kind of my thought. They may be wanting to decrease predators but they don't want more ungulates competing for the same food that their livestock needs.The Capitol Press? This is an ag industry media outlet correct? That referred to elk as an invasive species correct? The Capitol Press has not been an advocate of wildlife in general, and now they are promoting a lawsuit to support ungulate herd recovery? I can't wait to read! Sounds great that industry is supporting wildlife!Without more facts it is very difficult to understand how anyone could build meaningful support. Is this just a scam to make lawyers wealthy? If plaintiffs are not ready to file suit why are they blabbing about it on social media and giving the defendants more time (and material) to defeat a potential lawsuit? None of this seems logical or well thought out and other than the folks mentioning a tribal angle I don't see a lot of avenues to a successful lawsuit :dunno: I guess we will just have to wait until Spring.:yeah:This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:What are "properly managed predators" and how does a court force an agency to do this? I'm all for wolf hunting, more bear harvest, more cougar harvest, baits, dogs etc...but without any details it seems far fetched anything meaningful will come as a result of a lawsuit intended to force wdfw "to properly manage predators".
I could see litigation over wolf delisting (arguing the state has been arbitrary in its criteria?) or possibly over depredation issues...but even those issues will not lead to "properly managed predators". As others noted, the courts will defer to agency experts if it is a matter of professional judgement and which data/science applies...leaving a major uphill battle to plaintiffs.
There is a saying about things that sound too good to be true...this may fall in that category.
This, if it does happen, will be a very short case. "Proper" would be a near impossible legal definition.
WOW, just wow, I'm not the one writing the lawsuit and that's not the language of the suit! :rolleyes: :bash:
I was merely informing folks "in my own words" of what is being planned so those of us who want to see some positive change can build support. I thank anyone for any support they are willing to provide!
Keep an eye on the Capitol Press, I heard there may be mention there soon. ;)
:tup: :tup:
If the Capital Press is supporting it, I bet it's most likely in support of predator management in terms of livestock depredation, not so much increasing ungulate recovery. It's just a byproduct of increased predator management.
Thoughts?
And crop damage...
Post by: Rainier10 on December 27, 2018, 07:10:52 PM
Someone else mentioned that they could use hunter support but let’s be honest they aren’t looking out for hunters. Now if it is a hunting group pulling the AG groups in for support I could see that still benefiting hunters.
Post by: KFhunter on December 27, 2018, 07:19:24 PM
farmers that only grow crops and complain there's too many elk trampling their peas I'm not so sure about :dunno:
Post by: WSU on December 27, 2018, 07:27:02 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 27, 2018, 08:38:21 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 27, 2018, 09:04:56 PM
I have to wonder if a predator lawsuit could also apply to growing sea lion numbers or fish eating ducks that are wiping out endangered salmon and steelhead runs?
<-- not a lawyer, but I'd think such a large scope would be overly broad (and fail) :dunno:
I'd opt for a narrow scope, easily winnable, then build from there.
Post by: Tbar on December 27, 2018, 09:42:53 PM
I have to wonder if a predator lawsuit could also apply to growing sea lion numbers or fish eating ducks that are wiping out endangered salmon and steelhead runs?Not likely, this would require an exemption on the prohibition of take. (Mmpa)
Post by: bigtex on December 28, 2018, 08:44:15 AM
I have to wonder if a predator lawsuit could also apply to growing sea lion numbers or fish eating ducks that are wiping out endangered salmon and steelhead runs?Both of those are federal issues not state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 28, 2018, 08:53:09 AM
But Wdfw doesn't even want to acknowledge the seals and sea lions. At the killer whale meetings they avoid anything about it. Wish they were active in pressing the Feds on the issue. Probably the basic reason why there is a lawsuit for other predators.I have to wonder if a predator lawsuit could also apply to growing sea lion numbers or fish eating ducks that are wiping out endangered salmon and steelhead runs?Both of those are federal issues not state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Jpmiller on December 28, 2018, 02:39:39 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2018, 02:44:20 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2018, 02:45:17 PM
I have to wonder if a predator lawsuit could also apply to growing sea lion numbers or fish eating ducks that are wiping out endangered salmon and steelhead runs?Both of those are federal issues not state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
gotcha :tup:
Post by: Jpmiller on December 28, 2018, 02:47:40 PM
I think you can look at the dismal harvest numbers?
But that could be cause by a whole number of factors. I don't think that argument alone would hold up in court. I'd love to be able to look at predator prey studies and population surveys if they were out there and available to the public, especially if they support the cause of less predators but more ungulates.
Post by: jasnt on December 28, 2018, 02:51:56 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2018, 02:56:10 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 28, 2018, 03:00:33 PM
There is no study’s because they just estimate game numbers. They can count those that migrate but they don’t do that every where.
Interesting you say that. In the paperwork for my daughters moose hunt was instructions to keep count of the number of different bulls, cows and calves seen during the hunt. Is this their study? Is this how they base their counts, by relying on hunters in the woods? :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on December 28, 2018, 03:02:37 PM
There is no study’s because they just estimate game numbers. They can count those that migrate but they don’t do that every where.
Interesting you say that. In the paperwork for my daughters moose hunt was instructions to keep count of the number of different bulls, cows and calves seen during the hunt. Is this their study? Is this how they base their counts, by relying on hunters in the woods? :dunno:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/moose/
Quote
If you spend time in undeveloped areas where moose may occur, your report can help inform moose management whether or not you see any moose. WDFW is most interested in reports from people spending time in natural areas in Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, and Spokane counties between September 1 and November 30.
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2018, 03:04:22 PM
There is no study’s because they just estimate game numbers. They can count those that migrate but they don’t do that every where.
Interesting you say that. In the paperwork for my daughters moose hunt was instructions to keep count of the number of different bulls, cows and calves seen during the hunt. Is this their study? Is this how they base their counts, by relying on hunters in the woods? :dunno:
I think so, I'm not aware of any moose counts. If I remember correctly they did a study in two areas to determine cause of mortality in moose, it is posted on here somewhere. One study area (southern 49 degrees) showed similar mortality from predators and ticks. One study area (mt spokane) did not show much predator mortality.
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2018, 03:07:11 PM
There is no study’s because they just estimate game numbers. They can count those that migrate but they don’t do that every where.
Interesting you say that. In the paperwork for my daughters moose hunt was instructions to keep count of the number of different bulls, cows and calves seen during the hunt. Is this their study? Is this how they base their counts, by relying on hunters in the woods? :dunno:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/moose/QuoteIf you spend time in undeveloped areas where moose may occur, your report can help inform moose management whether or not you see any moose. WDFW is most interested in reports from people spending time in natural areas in Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, and Spokane counties between September 1 and November 30.
It's too bad there isn't similar data from 2000 through 2015 before wolves started impacting moose!
Post by: huntnphool on December 28, 2018, 03:20:37 PM
There is no study’s because they just estimate game numbers. They can count those that migrate but they don’t do that every where.
Interesting you say that. In the paperwork for my daughters moose hunt was instructions to keep count of the number of different bulls, cows and calves seen during the hunt. Is this their study? Is this how they base their counts, by relying on hunters in the woods? :dunno:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/moose/QuoteIf you spend time in undeveloped areas where moose may occur, your report can help inform moose management whether or not you see any moose. WDFW is most interested in reports from people spending time in natural areas in Okanogan, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, and Spokane counties between September 1 and November 30.
It's too bad there isn't similar data from 2000 through 2015 before wolves started impacting moose!
It's interesting that WDFW actively solicits help/info from hunters in the woods concerning moose numbers, taking their word for it, yet at the same time dismisses any encounter with wolves in the field by hunters as tin foil hat conspiracy, requiring a laundry list of evidence before paying any attention. :dunno:
Post by: jasnt on December 28, 2018, 03:27:56 PM
South 117
Post by: jackelope on December 28, 2018, 06:46:43 PM
I see less and less moose every year. Have not seen one since 2nd day of early modern deer. Normally this time of year I run across moose almost daily checking my trap line. Last Sunday and Monday I put 14 miles on my boots and never ran across any tracks but cougar and few deer.
South 117
Are you saying that’s a cougar track?
Post by: KFhunter on December 28, 2018, 06:49:47 PM
I see less and less moose every year. Have not seen one since 2nd day of early modern deer. Normally this time of year I run across moose almost daily checking my trap line. Last Sunday and Monday I put 14 miles on my boots and never ran across any tracks but cougar and few deer.
South 117
Are you saying that’s a cougar track?
I was waiting for that :chuckle:
(yes it's a cougar track)
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 28, 2018, 06:53:43 PM
I see less and less moose every year. Have not seen one since 2nd day of early modern deer. Normally this time of year I run across moose almost daily checking my trap line. Last Sunday and Monday I put 14 miles on my boots and never ran across any tracks but cougar and few deer.
South 117
Are you saying that’s a cougar track?
I was waiting for that :chuckle:
(yes it's a cougar track)
With what looks like a broken toe nail.
Post by: KFhunter on December 28, 2018, 06:57:41 PM
With what looks like a broken toe nail.
those are tracking dots
Post by: jasnt on December 28, 2018, 07:59:07 PM
yes. Both tracks are the same animal I was waiting for that aswell. Those tracks are 10 feet apart. No other tracks in the area. I took them to show how cats often walk with claws extended when in deep snowI see less and less moose every year. Have not seen one since 2nd day of early modern deer. Normally this time of year I run across moose almost daily checking my trap line. Last Sunday and Monday I put 14 miles on my boots and never ran across any tracks but cougar and few deer.
South 117
Are you saying that’s a cougar track?
Post by: jackelope on December 28, 2018, 08:09:19 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 28, 2018, 08:13:37 PM
Post by: jasnt on December 28, 2018, 08:57:43 PM
Size and pointy pads on the claw one said coyote to me. The second one with blood looked more like a cat. A view of them in stride would have made it clearer. There is no mistaking a cat walking when you can see 5-6 tracks together.i tracked him a long ways. All the same track
Post by: Tbar on December 28, 2018, 09:18:55 PM
Think about the last statement, can any court prioritize any species over another?I think you can look at the dismal harvest numbers?
But that could be cause by a whole number of factors. I don't think that argument alone would hold up in court. I'd love to be able to look at predator prey studies and population surveys if they were out there and available to the public, especially if they support the cause of less predators but more ungulates.
Post by: KFhunter on December 28, 2018, 09:24:11 PM
yes. Both tracks are the same animal I was waiting for that aswell. Those tracks are 10 feet apart. No other tracks in the area. I took them to show how cats often walk with claws extended when in deep snowI see less and less moose every year. Have not seen one since 2nd day of early modern deer. Normally this time of year I run across moose almost daily checking my trap line. Last Sunday and Monday I put 14 miles on my boots and never ran across any tracks but cougar and few deer.
South 117
Are you saying that’s a cougar track?
the one with the bloody toenail is the back foot, the clean track with the claws showing is the front. The snow pushes on the front of the foot making a claw imprint but the claw imprint is higher up than the pad.
Those tracks look to be a mid to smaller size female as the back foot is landing inside the front foot track.
Post by: KFhunter on December 28, 2018, 09:30:13 PM
Size and pointy pads on the claw one said coyote to me. The second one with blood looked more like a cat. A view of them in stride would have made it clearer. There is no mistaking a cat walking when you can see 5-6 tracks together.i trackedhimHer a long ways. All the same track
:tup:
Post by: jasnt on December 28, 2018, 09:33:16 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 28, 2018, 09:41:59 PM
[/quote]
I continue to withhold judgement until more details are known...but I don't get warm fuzzies if big ag is behind the lawsuit. At best there is a narrow overlap where a byproduct of their efforts might be beneficial to sportsmen. However, on a host of issues most farm bureau and ag industry folks are not sportsmen friendly. I'm sure they would be happy to take sportsmen's hard earned money and use us as a pawn in their game though.
[/quote]
Although they would most certainly benefit, "Big AG" or the Cattleman's Association aren't involved. This suit will be completely founded (and funded) by sportsmen.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 29, 2018, 08:45:39 AM
Thats a cat track for sure. I have troubles with the pads but there is no mistaking the stride.Size and pointy pads on the claw one said coyote to me. The second one with blood looked more like a cat. A view of them in stride would have made it clearer. There is no mistaking a cat walking when you can see 5-6 tracks together.i tracked him a long ways. All the same track
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 06:59:00 AM
yes. Both tracks are the same animal I was waiting for that aswell. Those tracks are 10 feet apart. No other tracks in the area. I took them to show how cats often walk with claws extended when in deep snowI see less and less moose every year. Have not seen one since 2nd day of early modern deer. Normally this time of year I run across moose almost daily checking my trap line. Last Sunday and Monday I put 14 miles on my boots and never ran across any tracks but cougar and few deer.
South 117
Are you saying that’s a cougar track?
They especially extend their toes and claws trying to stay up if there is a heavy wet snow or a little crust. That appears to be a female judging by the way the feet go into and out of the track and the pointed toes. I'm surprised you didn't see wolf tracks, that southern end has got a ton of wolf activity.
Post by: jasnt on December 31, 2018, 07:12:23 AM
i often do. Just not lately, they must be up more by power lake where the snow is a bit deeperyes. Both tracks are the same animal I was waiting for that aswell. Those tracks are 10 feet apart. No other tracks in the area. I took them to show how cats often walk with claws extended when in deep snowI see less and less moose every year. Have not seen one since 2nd day of early modern deer. Normally this time of year I run across moose almost daily checking my trap line. Last Sunday and Monday I put 14 miles on my boots and never ran across any tracks but cougar and few deer.
South 117
Are you saying that’s a cougar track?
They especially extend their toes and claws trying to stay up if there is a heavy wet snow or a little crust. That appears to be a female judging by the way the feet go into and out of the track and the pointed toes. I'm surprised you didn't see wolf tracks, that southern end has got a ton of wolf activity.
Post by: jasnt on December 31, 2018, 07:21:07 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 07:50:44 AM
another possibility:
Save The Moose
too late for caribou
(picture of cougar or wolf)
Manage Predators
Save The Moose
too late for caribou
(picture of cougar or wolf)
Manage Predators
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 08:00:15 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 31, 2018, 08:59:38 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 09:00:00 AM
Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
Post by: Tbar on December 31, 2018, 09:03:27 AM
Where would the SWAP play into that argument? Benefit and detriment?Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 09:08:28 AM
SWAP? I'm not tracking what you are referring to...Where would the SWAP play into that argument? Benefit and detriment?Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 09:09:38 AM
Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
Post by: jasnt on December 31, 2018, 09:13:31 AM
Post by: hunter399 on December 31, 2018, 09:15:44 AM
I think wdfw has mismanaged predators ,animal kind and human kind as with hunting regs in general .
I don't see a lot of Hunters that are gonna agree that hunters and the way we are managed through the regs that are set as part of the problem as well.
Also what is the agenda of the lawsuit ,as compensation for hunters ,would be one question I would have to ask before I was fully support it.
Hound hunting returned
Bear baiting
Wolf hunting
Better regs for deer ,moose ,elk, to compensate for more predators .
Why are we dumping money and time ,what is the goal,or the big picture?
Post by: Tbar on December 31, 2018, 09:17:21 AM
Post by: Tbar on December 31, 2018, 09:21:51 AM
So hunters are going to "found and fund" a lawsuit that probably is not possible to win? Am I following you correctly piano?Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
Post by: hunter399 on December 31, 2018, 09:23:32 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 09:24:06 AM
I would support a lawsuit more if us hunters are also counted as predators.Your questions will be answered when the suit is initiated. I believe most hunters who are concerned about our game animals understand that we have an unchecked predator spiral in this state and will support it.
I think wdfw has mismanaged predators ,animal kind and human kind as with hunting regs in general .
I don't see a lot of Hunters that are gonna agree that hunters and the way we are managed through the regs that are set as part of the problem as well.
Also what is the agenda of the lawsuit ,as compensation for hunters ,would be one question I would have to ask before I was fully support it.
Hound hunting returned
Bear baiting
Wolf hunting
Better regs for deer ,moose ,elk, to compensate for more predators .
Why are we dumping money and time ,what is the goal,or the big picture?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 09:25:48 AM
No, you are not following. I really have no more to say until the suit is filed.So hunters are going to "found and fund" a lawsuit that probably is not possible to win? Am I following you correctly piano?Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
Post by: Tbar on December 31, 2018, 09:33:12 AM
What am I not following? I think you are correct. To enter into litigation unarmed is cavalier at best. What literature is out there to help educate and paint the picture of poor management? I honestly would love to read it all! To gain support preparation is needed and you seem to have the inside track.No, you are not following. I really have no more to say until the suit is filed.So hunters are going to "found and fund" a lawsuit that probably is not possible to win? Am I following you correctly piano?Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 09:36:42 AM
Post by: Bango skank on December 31, 2018, 09:44:33 AM
Any and all input on the design is appreciated
I think its kind of too busy. With all that going on, a decal would have to be huge. Id say the state needs to be removed, or made much smaller. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 09:49:03 AM
I'm talking about only the PR side, not the legal side. As I've previously stated, I'm withholding judgement until substantially more detail is presented on the lawsuit - but with the limited information provided thus far - I see no path to success for a lawsuit at this time. Hence a PR effort might be more fruitful and my point still stands...a successful PR campaign would follow what I outline above. The PR campaign is not directed at the crazies on the enviro side...you'll never convince them of anything. It's to convince that middle 80% voting bloc that we need more balanced wildlife management than is occurring.Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 09:53:34 AM
I'm talking about only the PR side, not the legal side. As I've previously stated, I'm withholding judgement until substantially more detail is presented on the lawsuit - but with the limited information provided thus far - I see no path to success for a lawsuit at this time. Hence a PR effort might be more fruitful and my point still stands...a successful PR campaign would follow what I outline above. The PR campaign is not directed at the crazies on the enviro side...you'll never convince them of anything. It's to convince that middle 80% voting bloc that we need more balanced wildlife management than is occurring.Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
This is a lawsuit, not an initiative. You don't need to convince the general public of anything. You need to convince 12 jurors and a judge after facts and testimony have been presented to them. I would imagine the purpose of the above stickers would be to raise money for the suit. Appeal to sportsmen.
Post by: bigtex on December 31, 2018, 10:37:46 AM
If it were impossible to win, it wouldn't be filed.
I disagree with you on this part. Lawsuits are filed all the time that are impossible to win, or are meaningless. That's why many lawsuits are dismissed by a judge early in the process. Not saying that it will happen in this case, but just because its filed doesnt mean it has a chance to win.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 10:40:20 AM
Post by: Special T on December 31, 2018, 10:48:03 AM
If it were impossible to win, it wouldn't be filed.
I disagree with you on this part. Lawsuits are filed all the time that are impossible to win, or are meaningless. That's why many lawsuits are dismissed by a judge early in the process. Not saying that it will happen in this case, but just because its filed doesnt mean it has a chance to win.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Perhaps others have a better memory for this than me... Animal Rights activists are constantly filing lawsuits that may or may not go anywhere... Are there any Sportsmens Rights groups that attack the issue in the same way? I cant think of any.
Im thinking of something Akin to the 2A Foundation but for sportsmen...
Additionally most Sportsmen Orgs dont seem to have funds or stomach to Throw money at lawsuits since most are conservation based. Look at how long it took RMEF to even speak out against the lack of management of wolves!
Ive heard a lot of folks on here cry for some one to "Do Something!" about predators in this state. Hopefully plenty of us will donate funds or support whom ever is filing this.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 10:52:13 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 11:15:16 AM
I'm not talking about this individual theoretical lawsuit - I'm talking about balanced wildlife management in this state - the PR side is very critical. It's very possible there really is no substantive merit to this supposed lawsuit...so you don't need to worry about a jury...it has little chance of ever getting there. The PR stuff could much more likely influence policy and legislation - and that is a path to more successful predator management.I'm talking about only the PR side, not the legal side. As I've previously stated, I'm withholding judgement until substantially more detail is presented on the lawsuit - but with the limited information provided thus far - I see no path to success for a lawsuit at this time. Hence a PR effort might be more fruitful and my point still stands...a successful PR campaign would follow what I outline above. The PR campaign is not directed at the crazies on the enviro side...you'll never convince them of anything. It's to convince that middle 80% voting bloc that we need more balanced wildlife management than is occurring.Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
This is a lawsuit, not an initiative. You don't need to convince the general public of anything. You need to convince 12 jurors and a judge after facts and testimony have been presented to them. I would imagine the purpose of the above stickers would be to raise money for the suit. Appeal to sportsmen.
Frankly, I'm becoming more convinced that somebody has decided to try and capitalize on the anger and fears of folks against wolves and this lawsuit will be nothing but a sham way to make big $$ for some people or organizations. The Enviro crazies have been doing this successfully for decades...many of their attorneys and senior execs don't care about wildlife...but they do know how to make $$ playing on the emotions of their uneducated followers. This same model would work for those passionately against wolves...so I urge anyone to be very cautious before sending hard earned money to some group promising a lawsuit that sounds too good to be true. The consistent calls for money and donations to support this effort combined with nobody providing a solid set of details or facts about this lawsuit should be a major red flag for everyone. A fool and his money...
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 11:19:30 AM
Post by: Special T on December 31, 2018, 11:26:53 AM
Hard to send any $ when we dont know who it is... Apparently Bearpaw Does. Do you think BP would risk his Name and Reputation on his own site when he no doubt would suffer in his main business if he helped Fleece sportsmen in WA?
Perhaps the question should be What kinds of actions related to Predator issues could the lawsuit be about? Obviously it cant be some General They are screwing us and its obvious lawsuit.
Post by: Tbar on December 31, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
I continue to withhold judgement until more details are known...but I don't get warm fuzzies if big ag is behind the lawsuit. At best there is a narrow overlap where a byproduct of their efforts might be beneficial to sportsmen. However, on a host of issues most farm bureau and ag industry folks are not sportsmen friendly. I'm sure they would be happy to take sportsmen's hard earned money and use us as a pawn in their game though.
[/quote]
Although they would most certainly benefit, "Big AG" or the Cattleman's Association aren't involved. This suit will be completely founded (and funded) by sportsmen.
[/quote]
Honest question piano, grassroots or hunting organization?
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 11:32:54 AM
Well, it wouldn't be the first time you didn't know what you were talking about. :dunno:
Amen, he has no details but has condemned it! :chuckle:
The details will all come out when it's time! Until then we hope hunters will simply get the word out to other hunters that this suit is coming. Once it's filed and everyone can read it and see who is involved, then you can decide if you want to support it in any way. If anyone wants to offer constructive ideas to help that is great.
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 11:36:53 AM
@idahohuntr Is there an sportsmens organization that you know of that operates this way?
Hard to send any $ when we dont know who it is... Apparently Bearpaw Does. Do you think BP would risk his Name and Reputation on his own site when he no doubt would suffer in his main business if he helped Fleece sportsmen in WA?
Perhaps the question should be What kinds of actions related to Predator issues could the lawsuit be about? Obviously it cant be some General They are screwing us and its obvious lawsuit.
Thank you for thinking before condemning! :hello:
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 11:39:56 AM
QuoteI continue to withhold judgement until more details are known...but I don't get warm fuzzies if big ag is behind the lawsuit. At best there is a narrow overlap where a byproduct of their efforts might be beneficial to sportsmen. However, on a host of issues most farm bureau and ag industry folks are not sportsmen friendly. I'm sure they would be happy to take sportsmen's hard earned money and use us as a pawn in their game though.
Although they would most certainly benefit, "Big AG" or the Cattleman's Association aren't involved.
This suit will be completely founded (and funded) by sportsmen.
Honest question piano, grassroots or hunting organization?
That will obviously be revealed when the suit is filed!
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 11:42:38 AM
@idahohuntr Is there an sportsmens organization that you know of that operates this way?Per the order of your questions:
Hard to send any $ when we dont know who it is... Apparently Bearpaw Does. Do you think BP would risk his Name and Reputation on his own site when he no doubt would suffer in his main business if he helped Fleece sportsmen in WA?
Perhaps the question should be What kinds of actions related to Predator issues could the lawsuit be about? Obviously it cant be some General They are screwing us and its obvious lawsuit.
1. I would put SFW/BGF in this camp of screwing sportsmen to make $$. I do not know of any others that operate in such a shady way at this time.
2. Many of the wolf lovers are duped into sending money thinking they are doing good deeds. Sportsmen could be just as susceptible. I do not believe anyone, BP included, would intentionally support an effort to fleece sportsmen.
3. Yes, those are good questions. I've stated all along I'm withholding judgement until all the details are known. If this theoretical lawsuit is targeting some specific action (or lack of action) that is/was arbitrary and there is solid evidence to support a correction and such a correction is a good thing for wildlife management I would be a big supporter. If it's some sham that has no merit and has negative repercussions to wildlife management - I will be a big critic. And of course it could be somewhere in the middle...point being, until details are known its hard to blindly support and so I continue to urge caution.
Post by: Special T on December 31, 2018, 11:44:01 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 11:45:07 AM
I continue to withhold judgement until more details are known...but I don't get warm fuzzies if big ag is behind the lawsuit. At best there is a narrow overlap where a byproduct of their efforts might be beneficial to sportsmen. However, on a host of issues most farm bureau and ag industry folks are not sportsmen friendly. I'm sure they would be happy to take sportsmen's hard earned money and use us as a pawn in their game though.
Although they would most certainly benefit, "Big AG" or the Cattleman's Association aren't involved. This suit will be completely founded (and funded) by sportsmen.
[/quote]
Honest question piano, grassroots or hunting organization?
[/quote]
I've said all I can say. It is sportsmen and not AG.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 11:47:14 AM
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please spread the word about our secret lawsuit that we can't tell you anything about... :chuckle: :chuckle:Well, it wouldn't be the first time you didn't know what you were talking about. :dunno:
Amen, he has no details but has condemned it! :chuckle:
The details will all come out when it's time! Until then we hope hunters will simply get the word out to other hunters that this suit is coming. Once it's filed and everyone can read it and see who is involved, then you can decide if you want to support it in any way. If anyone wants to offer constructive ideas to help that is great.
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 11:47:54 AM
Honest question piano, grassroots or hunting organization?QuoteI continue to withhold judgement until more details are known...but I don't get warm fuzzies if big ag is behind the lawsuit. At best there is a narrow overlap where a byproduct of their efforts might be beneficial to sportsmen. However, on a host of issues most farm bureau and ag industry folks are not sportsmen friendly. I'm sure they would be happy to take sportsmen's hard earned money and use us as a pawn in their game though.
Although they would most certainly benefit, "Big AG" or the Cattleman's Association aren't involved.
This suit will be completely founded (and funded) by sportsmen.
I've said all I can say. It is sportsmen and not AG.
:yeah:
Post by: jackelope on December 31, 2018, 11:48:03 AM
I'm not talking about this individual theoretical lawsuit - I'm talking about balanced wildlife management in this state - the PR side is very critical. It's very possible there really is no substantive merit to this supposed lawsuit...so you don't need to worry about a jury...it has little chance of ever getting there. The PR stuff could much more likely influence policy and legislation - and that is a path to more successful predator management.I'm talking about only the PR side, not the legal side. As I've previously stated, I'm withholding judgement until substantially more detail is presented on the lawsuit - but with the limited information provided thus far - I see no path to success for a lawsuit at this time. Hence a PR effort might be more fruitful and my point still stands...a successful PR campaign would follow what I outline above. The PR campaign is not directed at the crazies on the enviro side...you'll never convince them of anything. It's to convince that middle 80% voting bloc that we need more balanced wildlife management than is occurring.Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
This is a lawsuit, not an initiative. You don't need to convince the general public of anything. You need to convince 12 jurors and a judge after facts and testimony have been presented to them. I would imagine the purpose of the above stickers would be to raise money for the suit. Appeal to sportsmen.
Frankly, I'm becoming more convinced that somebody has decided to try and capitalize on the anger and fears of folks against wolves and this lawsuit will be nothing but a sham way to make big $$ for some people or organizations. The Enviro crazies have been doing this successfully for decades...many of their attorneys and senior execs don't care about wildlife...but they do know how to make $$ playing on the emotions of their uneducated followers. This same model would work for those passionately against wolves...so I urge anyone to be very cautious before sending hard earned money to some group promising a lawsuit that sounds too good to be true. The consistent calls for money and donations to support this effort combined with nobody providing a solid set of details or facts about this lawsuit should be a major red flag for everyone. A fool and his money...
I'm not for or against anything until I see all the details...that said, your comments surprise me here. Major red flags at this point because nobody has provided a solid set of details or facts already when the OP made it clear multiple times that details will be provided in the spring? Condemning it without any details or facts?
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 11:49:44 AM
Please forgive my Ignorance... Im not sure what organizations these are.. SFW/BGFSportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and Big Game Forever (BGF). I hate to mention them for fear of derailing this thread but Google them...there are a ton of controversial threads about those orgs.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 11:52:45 AM
I've not condemned anything. That's just spin from others...I've stated clearly multiple times I'm withholding judgement. I absolutely continue to urge caution when the pleas for money are coming well before any details...that is how many scams operate (start writing your checks, will fill you in on the details later :chuckle:). If no details can be shared until spring, why post this to a social media site? Not logical. But again, if this is a solid lawsuit that benefits wildlife and sportsmen I will be a big supporter.I'm not talking about this individual theoretical lawsuit - I'm talking about balanced wildlife management in this state - the PR side is very critical. It's very possible there really is no substantive merit to this supposed lawsuit...so you don't need to worry about a jury...it has little chance of ever getting there. The PR stuff could much more likely influence policy and legislation - and that is a path to more successful predator management.I'm talking about only the PR side, not the legal side. As I've previously stated, I'm withholding judgement until substantially more detail is presented on the lawsuit - but with the limited information provided thus far - I see no path to success for a lawsuit at this time. Hence a PR effort might be more fruitful and my point still stands...a successful PR campaign would follow what I outline above. The PR campaign is not directed at the crazies on the enviro side...you'll never convince them of anything. It's to convince that middle 80% voting bloc that we need more balanced wildlife management than is occurring.Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
This is a lawsuit, not an initiative. You don't need to convince the general public of anything. You need to convince 12 jurors and a judge after facts and testimony have been presented to them. I would imagine the purpose of the above stickers would be to raise money for the suit. Appeal to sportsmen.
Frankly, I'm becoming more convinced that somebody has decided to try and capitalize on the anger and fears of folks against wolves and this lawsuit will be nothing but a sham way to make big $$ for some people or organizations. The Enviro crazies have been doing this successfully for decades...many of their attorneys and senior execs don't care about wildlife...but they do know how to make $$ playing on the emotions of their uneducated followers. This same model would work for those passionately against wolves...so I urge anyone to be very cautious before sending hard earned money to some group promising a lawsuit that sounds too good to be true. The consistent calls for money and donations to support this effort combined with nobody providing a solid set of details or facts about this lawsuit should be a major red flag for everyone. A fool and his money...
I'm not for or against anything until I see all the details...that said, your comments surprise me here. Major red flags at this point because nobody has provided a solid set of details or facts already when the OP made it clear multiple times that details will be provided in the spring? Condemning it without any details or facts?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 11:54:27 AM
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please spread the word about our secret lawsuit that we can't tell you anything about... :chuckle: :chuckle:Well, it wouldn't be the first time you didn't know what you were talking about. :dunno:
Amen, he has no details but has condemned it! :chuckle:
The details will all come out when it's time! Until then we hope hunters will simply get the word out to other hunters that this suit is coming. Once it's filed and everyone can read it and see who is involved, then you can decide if you want to support it in any way. If anyone wants to offer constructive ideas to help that is great.
It's likely not the first time you've been confused by something so obvious. I'm sorry you struggle so. I know it must be difficult. Try and have a nice New Year, regardless.
Post by: jasnt on December 31, 2018, 12:02:48 PM
who has asked for $$???I've not condemned anything. That's just spin from others...I've stated clearly multiple times I'm withholding judgement. I absolutely continue to urge caution when the pleas for money are coming well before any details...that is how many scams operate (start writing your checks, will fill you in on the details later :chuckle:). If no details can be shared until spring, why post this to a social media site? Not logical. But again, if this is a solid lawsuit that benefits wildlife and sportsmen I will be a big supporter.I'm not talking about this individual theoretical lawsuit - I'm talking about balanced wildlife management in this state - the PR side is very critical. It's very possible there really is no substantive merit to this supposed lawsuit...so you don't need to worry about a jury...it has little chance of ever getting there. The PR stuff could much more likely influence policy and legislation - and that is a path to more successful predator management.I'm talking about only the PR side, not the legal side. As I've previously stated, I'm withholding judgement until substantially more detail is presented on the lawsuit - but with the limited information provided thus far - I see no path to success for a lawsuit at this time. Hence a PR effort might be more fruitful and my point still stands...a successful PR campaign would follow what I outline above. The PR campaign is not directed at the crazies on the enviro side...you'll never convince them of anything. It's to convince that middle 80% voting bloc that we need more balanced wildlife management than is occurring.Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
This is a lawsuit, not an initiative. You don't need to convince the general public of anything. You need to convince 12 jurors and a judge after facts and testimony have been presented to them. I would imagine the purpose of the above stickers would be to raise money for the suit. Appeal to sportsmen.
Frankly, I'm becoming more convinced that somebody has decided to try and capitalize on the anger and fears of folks against wolves and this lawsuit will be nothing but a sham way to make big $$ for some people or organizations. The Enviro crazies have been doing this successfully for decades...many of their attorneys and senior execs don't care about wildlife...but they do know how to make $$ playing on the emotions of their uneducated followers. This same model would work for those passionately against wolves...so I urge anyone to be very cautious before sending hard earned money to some group promising a lawsuit that sounds too good to be true. The consistent calls for money and donations to support this effort combined with nobody providing a solid set of details or facts about this lawsuit should be a major red flag for everyone. A fool and his money...
I'm not for or against anything until I see all the details...that said, your comments surprise me here. Major red flags at this point because nobody has provided a solid set of details or facts already when the OP made it clear multiple times that details will be provided in the spring? Condemning it without any details or facts?
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 12:03:44 PM
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please spread the word about our secret lawsuit that we can't tell you anything about... :chuckle: :chuckle:Well, it wouldn't be the first time you didn't know what you were talking about. :dunno:
Amen, he has no details but has condemned it! :chuckle:
The details will all come out when it's time! Until then we hope hunters will simply get the word out to other hunters that this suit is coming. Once it's filed and everyone can read it and see who is involved, then you can decide if you want to support it in any way. If anyone wants to offer constructive ideas to help that is great.
I don't care what you may say to insult me, all that matters is that something positive is being worked on that will hopefully result in better predator management in Washington, that is what really matters! :twocents:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on December 31, 2018, 12:05:21 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 12:11:12 PM
who has asked for $$???I've not condemned anything. That's just spin from others...I've stated clearly multiple times I'm withholding judgement. I absolutely continue to urge caution when the pleas for money are coming well before any details...that is how many scams operate (start writing your checks, will fill you in on the details later :chuckle:). If no details can be shared until spring, why post this to a social media site? Not logical. But again, if this is a solid lawsuit that benefits wildlife and sportsmen I will be a big supporter.I'm not talking about this individual theoretical lawsuit - I'm talking about balanced wildlife management in this state - the PR side is very critical. It's very possible there really is no substantive merit to this supposed lawsuit...so you don't need to worry about a jury...it has little chance of ever getting there. The PR stuff could much more likely influence policy and legislation - and that is a path to more successful predator management.I'm talking about only the PR side, not the legal side. As I've previously stated, I'm withholding judgement until substantially more detail is presented on the lawsuit - but with the limited information provided thus far - I see no path to success for a lawsuit at this time. Hence a PR effort might be more fruitful and my point still stands...a successful PR campaign would follow what I outline above. The PR campaign is not directed at the crazies on the enviro side...you'll never convince them of anything. It's to convince that middle 80% voting bloc that we need more balanced wildlife management than is occurring.Even though certain antics might be humorous, I'm not sure what will actually help our cause. Once this suit gets underway certain enviro groups and/or media will likely use anything to make hunters look like hillbillies who know nothing.:yeah:
From a general PR side regarding predator management - I think the notion of highlighting loss of Caribou and concerns about other ungulates is a much better approach than directly targeting predators. The urban folks still love their cuddly wolves and bears...so make the issue about saving those sweet little fawns and calves with their pretty brown eyes. Any of the garbage with crosshairs and kill all the wolves will only hurt the cause in this liberal state. The message should be about balanced wildlife management...not annihilating any one species or killing them down to minimal levels. :twocents:
From the legal side, the enviro groups don't care about the sweet little fawns. They're not supporting a predator spiral because they love wildlife. They support it to undermine and eventually end hunting. It's probably not going to be possible to spin a different angle on a lawsuit aimed at changing the DFW's flawed predator management or lack thereof.
This is a lawsuit, not an initiative. You don't need to convince the general public of anything. You need to convince 12 jurors and a judge after facts and testimony have been presented to them. I would imagine the purpose of the above stickers would be to raise money for the suit. Appeal to sportsmen.
Frankly, I'm becoming more convinced that somebody has decided to try and capitalize on the anger and fears of folks against wolves and this lawsuit will be nothing but a sham way to make big $$ for some people or organizations. The Enviro crazies have been doing this successfully for decades...many of their attorneys and senior execs don't care about wildlife...but they do know how to make $$ playing on the emotions of their uneducated followers. This same model would work for those passionately against wolves...so I urge anyone to be very cautious before sending hard earned money to some group promising a lawsuit that sounds too good to be true. The consistent calls for money and donations to support this effort combined with nobody providing a solid set of details or facts about this lawsuit should be a major red flag for everyone. A fool and his money...
I'm not for or against anything until I see all the details...that said, your comments surprise me here. Major red flags at this point because nobody has provided a solid set of details or facts already when the OP made it clear multiple times that details will be provided in the spring? Condemning it without any details or facts?
It's probably my fault for asking people to brainstorm funding ideas (or however I put it) that could be used once the suit is filed. Nobody has asked me for any money, I was simply trying to look ahead for after the suit is filed, my mistake.
Post by: Special T on December 31, 2018, 12:12:49 PM
Please forgive my Ignorance... Im not sure what organizations these are.. SFW/BGFSportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and Big Game Forever (BGF). I hate to mention them for fear of derailing this thread but Google them...there are a ton of controversial threads about those orgs.
Interesting... They both seem Utah based
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 12:13:41 PM
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please spread the word about our secret lawsuit that we can't tell you anything about... :chuckle: :chuckle:Well, it wouldn't be the first time you didn't know what you were talking about. :dunno:
Amen, he has no details but has condemned it! :chuckle:
The details will all come out when it's time! Until then we hope hunters will simply get the word out to other hunters that this suit is coming. Once it's filed and everyone can read it and see who is involved, then you can decide if you want to support it in any way. If anyone wants to offer constructive ideas to help that is great.
I don't care what you may say to insult me, all that matters is that something positive is being worked on that will hopefully result in better predator management in Washington, that is what really matters! :twocents:
What he's having a problem with is he's unfamiliar with the marketing technique which employs and builds anticipation. Many legal teams have used this technique, as you know Dale. The movie companies do it all the time. He may not understand. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 12:21:00 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2018, 12:23:08 PM
Post by: jackelope on December 31, 2018, 12:28:57 PM
Please forgive my Ignorance... Im not sure what organizations these are.. SFW/BGFSportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and Big Game Forever (BGF). I hate to mention them for fear of derailing this thread but Google them...there are a ton of controversial threads about those orgs.
Interesting... They both seem Utah based
I don't believe he's saying they have anything at all to do with this pending lawsuit.
(Reply #161)
:dunno:
[/quote]
@idahohuntr Is there an sportsmens organization that you know of that operates this way?Per the order of your questions:
Hard to send any $ when we dont know who it is... Apparently Bearpaw Does. Do you think BP would risk his Name and Reputation on his own site when he no doubt would suffer in his main business if he helped Fleece sportsmen in WA?
Perhaps the question should be What kinds of actions related to Predator issues could the lawsuit be about? Obviously it cant be some General They are screwing us and its obvious lawsuit.
1. I would put SFW/BGF in this camp of screwing sportsmen to make $$. I do not know of any others that operate in such a shady way at this time.
2. Many of the wolf lovers are duped into sending money thinking they are doing good deeds. Sportsmen could be just as susceptible. I do not believe anyone, BP included, would intentionally support an effort to fleece sportsmen.
3. Yes, those are good questions. I've stated all along I'm withholding judgement until all the details are known. If this theoretical lawsuit is targeting some specific action (or lack of action) that is/was arbitrary and there is solid evidence to support a correction and such a correction is a good thing for wildlife management I would be a big supporter. If it's some sham that has no merit and has negative repercussions to wildlife management - I will be a big critic. And of course it could be somewhere in the middle...point being, until details are known its hard to blindly support and so I continue to urge caution.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 12:30:09 PM
Nor do I care what you and others say to insult me - we are all interested in successful management of this states wildlife. :tup:Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please spread the word about our secret lawsuit that we can't tell you anything about... :chuckle: :chuckle:Well, it wouldn't be the first time you didn't know what you were talking about. :dunno:
Amen, he has no details but has condemned it! :chuckle:
The details will all come out when it's time! Until then we hope hunters will simply get the word out to other hunters that this suit is coming. Once it's filed and everyone can read it and see who is involved, then you can decide if you want to support it in any way. If anyone wants to offer constructive ideas to help that is great.
I don't care what you may say to insult me, all that matters is that something positive is being worked on that will hopefully result in better predator management in Washington, that is what really matters! :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 12:32:46 PM
Please forgive my Ignorance... Im not sure what organizations these are.. SFW/BGFSportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and Big Game Forever (BGF). I hate to mention them for fear of derailing this thread but Google them...there are a ton of controversial threads about those orgs.
Interesting... They both seem Utah based
I don't believe he's saying they have anything at all to do with this pending lawsuit.
(Reply #161)
:dunno:
[/quote]@idahohuntr Is there an sportsmens organization that you know of that operates this way?Per the order of your questions:
Hard to send any $ when we dont know who it is... Apparently Bearpaw Does. Do you think BP would risk his Name and Reputation on his own site when he no doubt would suffer in his main business if he helped Fleece sportsmen in WA?
Perhaps the question should be What kinds of actions related to Predator issues could the lawsuit be about? Obviously it cant be some General They are screwing us and its obvious lawsuit.
1. I would put SFW/BGF in this camp of screwing sportsmen to make $$. I do not know of any others that operate in such a shady way at this time.
2. Many of the wolf lovers are duped into sending money thinking they are doing good deeds. Sportsmen could be just as susceptible. I do not believe anyone, BP included, would intentionally support an effort to fleece sportsmen.
3. Yes, those are good questions. I've stated all along I'm withholding judgement until all the details are known. If this theoretical lawsuit is targeting some specific action (or lack of action) that is/was arbitrary and there is solid evidence to support a correction and such a correction is a good thing for wildlife management I would be a big supporter. If it's some sham that has no merit and has negative repercussions to wildlife management - I will be a big critic. And of course it could be somewhere in the middle...point being, until details are known its hard to blindly support and so I continue to urge caution.
Correct. I have no idea who is behind this lawsuit - I just cited those two groups as evidence that organizations of hunters do things that make money but are not necessarily good for sportsmen...but not everyone shares my assessment of those two groups...so not wanting to debate that here.
Post by: bearpaw on December 31, 2018, 12:34:28 PM
Nor do I care what you and others say to insult me - we are all interested in successful management of this states wildlife. :tup:Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please spread the word about our secret lawsuit that we can't tell you anything about... :chuckle: :chuckle:Well, it wouldn't be the first time you didn't know what you were talking about. :dunno:
Amen, he has no details but has condemned it! :chuckle:
The details will all come out when it's time! Until then we hope hunters will simply get the word out to other hunters that this suit is coming. Once it's filed and everyone can read it and see who is involved, then you can decide if you want to support it in any way. If anyone wants to offer constructive ideas to help that is great.
I don't care what you may say to insult me, all that matters is that something positive is being worked on that will hopefully result in better predator management in Washington, that is what really matters! :twocents:
It was not my intention to insult you, I thought I was on the receiving end of that, my apologies if you thought I was insulting you. My only intention with this topic is to spread the word to hunters so that we can gather support for this once everyone has had a chance to read it after being filed.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2018, 12:38:58 PM
:brew:Nor do I care what you and others say to insult me - we are all interested in successful management of this states wildlife. :tup:Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Please spread the word about our secret lawsuit that we can't tell you anything about... :chuckle: :chuckle:Well, it wouldn't be the first time you didn't know what you were talking about. :dunno:
Amen, he has no details but has condemned it! :chuckle:
The details will all come out when it's time! Until then we hope hunters will simply get the word out to other hunters that this suit is coming. Once it's filed and everyone can read it and see who is involved, then you can decide if you want to support it in any way. If anyone wants to offer constructive ideas to help that is great.
I don't care what you may say to insult me, all that matters is that something positive is being worked on that will hopefully result in better predator management in Washington, that is what really matters! :twocents:
It was not my intention to insult you, I thought I was on the receiving end of that, my apologies if you thought I was insulting you. My only intention with this topic is to spread the word to hunters so that we can gather support for this once everyone has had a chance to read it after being filed.
And my only intention is that we don't just "pass it to find out what's in it".
I realize you have much more detail than I do so that probably explains why you are more comfortable gathering support.
Post by: Special T on December 31, 2018, 12:50:42 PM
Please forgive my Ignorance... Im not sure what organizations these are.. SFW/BGFSportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) and Big Game Forever (BGF). I hate to mention them for fear of derailing this thread but Google them...there are a ton of controversial threads about those orgs.
Interesting... They both seem Utah based
I don't believe he's saying they have anything at all to do with this pending lawsuit.
(Reply #161)
:dunno:
[/quote]@idahohuntr Is there an sportsmens organization that you know of that operates this way?Per the order of your questions:
Hard to send any $ when we dont know who it is... Apparently Bearpaw Does. Do you think BP would risk his Name and Reputation on his own site when he no doubt would suffer in his main business if he helped Fleece sportsmen in WA?
Perhaps the question should be What kinds of actions related to Predator issues could the lawsuit be about? Obviously it cant be some General They are screwing us and its obvious lawsuit.
1. I would put SFW/BGF in this camp of screwing sportsmen to make $$. I do not know of any others that operate in such a shady way at this time.
2. Many of the wolf lovers are duped into sending money thinking they are doing good deeds. Sportsmen could be just as susceptible. I do not believe anyone, BP included, would intentionally support an effort to fleece sportsmen.
3. Yes, those are good questions. I've stated all along I'm withholding judgement until all the details are known. If this theoretical lawsuit is targeting some specific action (or lack of action) that is/was arbitrary and there is solid evidence to support a correction and such a correction is a good thing for wildlife management I would be a big supporter. If it's some sham that has no merit and has negative repercussions to wildlife management - I will be a big critic. And of course it could be somewhere in the middle...point being, until details are known its hard to blindly support and so I continue to urge caution.
I didnt think that. I just was unfamiliar with them and just noted that they seemed Utah based.
Post by: wolfbait on January 01, 2019, 07:39:13 AM
Once the suit is filed and all the info is public record I'm sure there will be many others who will want to help in any way they can. I had pretty much written off Washington as being totally lost, this is the last best chance we have to turn wildlife management around in WA, we must hope for success! :tup:
Everyone I have shared the potential lawsuit with is eager to help in the funding, including ranchers, and ATV users, the response is of course very positive.
The feedback has been "something needs to be done".
Post by: ELKBURGER on January 01, 2019, 08:56:11 AM
Post by: Special T on January 31, 2019, 01:39:32 PM
Despite the discussions and complaints about tribal hunting I cant help but notice a pivot in folks reactions to tribes. Now that there is a realization that the same animosity of Tribal freedom may make them great allies in predator control. The Spokane & Colville have been hunting wolves. The recent pursuit of the Colville to hunt them on the North Half now that they are no longer federally listed. The lack of influence Animal Rights Activist groups have over the tribes have allowed this. It seems plausible that the wildlife science from the tribes are less politically motivated and more self interested. This self interest has been a source for confrontation in the past but it appears to line up nicely with the needs of sportsmen since we have been incapable of influencing change on our own effectively.
These links are not an exhaustive search of the issues found here on HW or the internet. They are a representation of some of the highlights I think may be at play with a potential lawsuit. My mind wandered quite a bit because so much documentation has been shared on this site but not really organized. Perhaps in our wait to find out who and what this lawsuit is all about you can recall some pointed threads that had articles or studies that showed the need for predator management.
Gov Inslee veto's work done on cougar quotas.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,184310.0.html
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/inslee-reverses-panels-decision-to-increase-cougar-hunts/
Cat junk science
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,5731.msg62229.html#msg62229
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,106150.msg1385229.html#msg1385229
Studies done by the Tribes on cats.
https://peerj.com/preprints/1915.pdf
https://nwtreatytribes.org/lower-elwha-klallam-tribe-partners-tracking-cougars-in-olympic-mountains/
Tribal wolf hunting
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/colville-tribes-to-open-hunt-on-wolves-near-canadian-border/
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/spokane-tribe-hunt-targets-6-wolves/
Post by: ne kid on January 31, 2019, 02:03:28 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 31, 2019, 02:18:33 PM
Post by: ne kid on January 31, 2019, 02:25:08 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 02, 2019, 08:27:20 AM
Post by: rosscrazyelk on February 02, 2019, 08:32:24 AM
They should also be held accountable for mismanagement of our elk and deer herds.I agree wholeheartedly
Post by: trophyhunt on February 02, 2019, 09:44:54 AM
:yeah:They should also be held accountable for mismanagement of our elk and deer herds.I agree wholeheartedly
Post by: bearpaw on February 02, 2019, 12:28:49 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on February 06, 2019, 09:38:36 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 11, 2019, 11:08:16 AM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,236519.msg3160012/topicseen.html#new
Quote
Last week another Stevens County resident had livestock killed by a cougar and WDFW basically did nothing. The Stevens County Prosecutor and the lady were both on the local radio this morning discussing what can be done to stop this negligence by WDFW. The lady said she is especially concerned how the loss of the livestock will affect her young son.
The Stevens County prosecutor said he located a WAC that allows counties to create their own predator response teams to deal with issues. He also saif he contacted the WA State Attorney General and asked what if any law prevents the county from moving forward with some form of control actions. He said the state has not replied back.
There are so many people in this county who are fed up with WDFW's failure to manage dangerous predators. I never imagined WDFW could become so disgusting! My fingers are crossed that the county will finally take action!
Post by: Twispriver on March 22, 2019, 04:33:22 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 22, 2019, 04:41:37 PM
Post by: Twispriver on March 22, 2019, 05:05:07 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 05, 2019, 04:53:58 PM
Post by: jasnt on June 05, 2019, 05:32:32 PM
Its getting awfully close to summer...I presume based on the myriad of previous comments this lawsuit will be filed in the next few weeks and we can all see the details?was just thinking about this today aswell
Post by: idaho guy on June 05, 2019, 05:45:35 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2019, 06:29:05 PM
I'm pretty sure that the commission got the message from hunters at the Spokane meeting, maybe they are making changes? If the Department is moving in the right direction I'm wondering if the lawsuit is being reconsidered, I don't know that, but I wonder? Perhaps getting a new director who wants to make changes will help WDFW avoid a lawsuit. again I don't know this but I wonder?
Post by: jasnt on June 05, 2019, 06:44:24 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2019, 06:50:49 PM
Any changes they try to make will be opposed by the anti’s and the blind followers with high emotions. It’s a loosing battle and any win we get will just get voted out by non hunters at some point. The lawsuit needs to happen and a judge needs to force action before it’s too late. We are spinning out of control in our predator pit and it may be too late now. Change needs to happen before law abiding citizens are forced to do it them selves!
I agree with you but I haven't heard what is going on?
But it seems if WDFW makes enough changes it almost seems they could avoid a lawsuit?
Post by: jasnt on June 05, 2019, 06:57:05 PM
my trust in the department has wore very thin. I’m hopeful but I feel it won’t change. Dosent matter what they do the public voice is what matters. Most folks have no clue what’s really going on including most hunters. Even on hunting groups I see tons of folks badgering folks killing cougar and such. They have no clue and there is no one educating the public. Too many people don’t think we need predator management. They don’t see the problems and look at wolves and cougar as mystical creaturesAny changes they try to make will be opposed by the anti’s and the blind followers with high emotions. It’s a loosing battle and any win we get will just get voted out by non hunters at some point. The lawsuit needs to happen and a judge needs to force action before it’s too late. We are spinning out of control in our predator pit and it may be too late now. Change needs to happen before law abiding citizens are forced to do it them selves!
I agree with you but I haven't heard what is going on?
But it seems if WDFW makes enough changes it almost seems they could avoid a lawsuit?
Post by: bearpaw on June 05, 2019, 06:59:36 PM
my trust in the department has wore very thin. I’m hopeful but I feel it won’t change. Dosent matter what they do the public voice is what matters. Most folks have no clue what’s really going on including most hunters. Even on hunting groups I see tons of folks badgering folks killing cougar and such. They have no clue and there is no one educating the public. Too many people don’t think we need predator management. They don’t see the problems and look at wolves and cougar as mystical creaturesAny changes they try to make will be opposed by the anti’s and the blind followers with high emotions. It’s a loosing battle and any win we get will just get voted out by non hunters at some point. The lawsuit needs to happen and a judge needs to force action before it’s too late. We are spinning out of control in our predator pit and it may be too late now. Change needs to happen before law abiding citizens are forced to do it them selves!
I agree with you but I haven't heard what is going on?
But it seems if WDFW makes enough changes it almost seems they could avoid a lawsuit?
I agree with everything you said there...
Post by: jasnt on June 05, 2019, 07:40:43 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 06, 2019, 06:32:59 AM
my trust in the department has wore very thin. I’m hopeful but I feel it won’t change. Dosent matter what they do the public voice is what matters. Most folks have no clue what’s really going on including most hunters. Even on hunting groups I see tons of folks badgering folks killing cougar and such. They have no clue and there is no one educating the public. Too many people don’t think we need predator management. They don’t see the problems and look at wolves and cougar as mystical creaturesAny changes they try to make will be opposed by the anti’s and the blind followers with high emotions. It’s a loosing battle and any win we get will just get voted out by non hunters at some point. The lawsuit needs to happen and a judge needs to force action before it’s too late. We are spinning out of control in our predator pit and it may be too late now. Change needs to happen before law abiding citizens are forced to do it them selves!
I agree with you but I haven't heard what is going on?
But it seems if WDFW makes enough changes it almost seems they could avoid a lawsuit?
Like the BS propaganda that USFWS, WDFW etc.. spew, that WE are moving into the predators territory, instead of the truth, which is the predators are out of control. Heard that line of BS the other day in a conversation about the cougar that attacked the boy in Leavenworth.
What price will be paid before there is any predator control? And will the corrupt upper management of WDFW ever be held accountable.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,239729.0.html
Post by: MacAttack on June 06, 2019, 10:44:20 AM
Post by: follow maggie on June 09, 2019, 03:50:53 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2019, 05:43:53 PM
Even if the department moves in a positive direction, inslee is likely to veto it, just as he did with the increased cougar quotas 3-4 years ago.
Inslee was right to veto the cougar quota increase as it wasn't done properly and exposed WDFW to litigation. Much as it chokes me to say that.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 09, 2019, 06:21:02 PM
But did he veto it for that reason or because of bunny huggers?Even if the department moves in a positive direction, inslee is likely to veto it, just as he did with the increased cougar quotas 3-4 years ago.
Inslee was right to veto the cougar quota increase as it wasn't done properly and exposed WDFW to litigation. Much as it chokes me to say that.
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2019, 06:47:17 PM
But did he veto it for that reason or because of bunny huggers?Even if the department moves in a positive direction, inslee is likely to veto it, just as he did with the increased cougar quotas 3-4 years ago.
Inslee was right to veto the cougar quota increase as it wasn't done properly and exposed WDFW to litigation. Much as it chokes me to say that.
because of the bunny huggers, as they would sue the dept and win, but Inslee didn't exactly need his arm twisted much!
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/oct/20/inslee-strikes-down-cougar-hunting-quota-increase/
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2019, 07:45:25 PM
But did he veto it for that reason or because of bunny huggers?Even if the department moves in a positive direction, inslee is likely to veto it, just as he did with the increased cougar quotas 3-4 years ago.
Inslee was right to veto the cougar quota increase as it wasn't done properly and exposed WDFW to litigation. Much as it chokes me to say that.
because of the bunny huggers, as they would sue the dept and win, but Inslee didn't exactly need his arm twisted much!
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/oct/20/inslee-strikes-down-cougar-hunting-quota-increase/
Another predator the public is forced to control
Post by: Special T on June 13, 2019, 11:00:59 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/wdfw-and-partners-submit-application-lethally-remove-sea-lions-columbia-river-and-tributaries
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Oh Mah on June 13, 2019, 11:25:47 PM
Post by: ELKBURGER on June 14, 2019, 07:45:36 AM
All I can say is wow!I hope this application gets approved and that its not too late to get the run numbers back up.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/wdfw-and-partners-submit-application-lethally-remove-sea-lions-columbia-river-and-tributaries
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2019, 08:07:44 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on June 14, 2019, 12:42:11 PM
Post by: WSU on June 14, 2019, 12:46:02 PM
Hopefully the Puget Sound follows after the Columbia. Some huge percentage of the smolts are getting eaten, and I think I recall it was mainly be harbor seals. There are thousands of harbor seals.
Post by: huntnphool on June 14, 2019, 02:02:23 PM
I believe they trap them then euthanize with drugs.
Hopefully the Puget Sound follows after the Columbia. Some huge percentage of the smolts are getting eaten, and I think I recall it was mainly be harbor seals. There are thousands of harbor seals.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/wdfw-and-partners-submit-application-lethally-remove-sea-lions-columbia-river-and-tributaries
Post by: WSU on June 14, 2019, 02:09:09 PM
I believe they trap them then euthanize with drugs.
Hopefully the Puget Sound follows after the Columbia. Some huge percentage of the smolts are getting eaten, and I think I recall it was mainly be harbor seals. There are thousands of harbor seals.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/wdfw-and-partners-submit-application-lethally-remove-sea-lions-columbia-river-and-tributaries
That's what I was responding to, plus Jpmiller's question. This is an expansion of what they are already doing at Willamette falls and Bonneville. I'm hoping they expand it further to include Puget Sound.
Post by: KFhunter on June 16, 2019, 10:56:58 AM
No way to verify though as its been too long. Noticed it wasnt skinned out so there wasnt a field necropcy done, might not needed to though
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 16, 2019, 11:30:07 AM
Came across this yesterday, I thinking a lion did it with the ribs opened like that(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190616/ff6bb7086ead6265640d263db7adced0.jpg)Does look like lion. A canine would have likely torn up the hind and throat. Plus it looks like patches of hair pulled out and left around it.
No way to verify though as its been too long. Noticed it wasnt skinned out so there wasnt a field necropcy done, might not needed to though
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Bigshooter on June 16, 2019, 11:54:57 AM
Post by: snake on June 16, 2019, 11:55:59 AM
Good News! Better 10 years to late than never i guess.I believe they trap them then euthanize with drugs.
Hopefully the Puget Sound follows after the Columbia. Some huge percentage of the smolts are getting eaten, and I think I recall it was mainly be harbor seals. There are thousands of harbor seals.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/wdfw-and-partners-submit-application-lethally-remove-sea-lions-columbia-river-and-tributaries
That's what I was responding to, plus Jpmiller's question. This is an expansion of what they are already doing at Willamette falls and Bonneville. I'm hoping they expand it further to include Puget Sound.
Post by: bigtex on June 16, 2019, 01:37:09 PM
So the lawsuit is off? :dunno: I have about the same amount of belief that there was ever going to be a lawsuit as I do in believing that WDFW can manage predators.:yeah:
People talk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 16, 2019, 03:07:00 PM
So the lawsuit is off? :dunno: I have about the same amount of belief that there was ever going to be a lawsuit as I do in believing that WDFW can manage predators.
I haven't heard anything from the source so I don't know? I'm certainly wondering what the status is too?
Post by: Bushcraft on June 21, 2019, 09:50:39 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 25, 2019, 08:00:24 AM
My sources indicate that they are still in the data gathering mode. Evidently there was a mountain of stuff to parse through.:chuckle:
Post by: Tbar on June 25, 2019, 08:40:48 AM
:yeah: :dunno: :chuckle:My sources indicate that they are still in the data gathering mode. Evidently there was a mountain of stuff to parse through.:chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 26, 2019, 10:27:12 AM
My sources indicate that they are still in the data gathering mode. Evidently there was a mountain of stuff to parse through.
Thank you
Post by: Tbar on June 30, 2019, 05:57:19 PM
My sources indicate that they are still in the data gathering mode. Evidently there was a mountain of stuff to parse through.Aren't you one of the sources? Along with DD from the cattlemans? Nice work puppeteering those who will follow you. So what data are you looking for? Is there a lack of data not a mountain? Hmmm
Post by: jasnt on June 30, 2019, 06:37:16 PM
Post by: Tbar on June 30, 2019, 06:52:10 PM
Lack of data 😂Feel free to provide any citations to support this lawsuit. The antis are well armed and a step ahead. That's why this will fall flat. The fact that you think it's funny is exactly why the antis will prevail. The sportsman community isn't funding any studies that will stand the legal test, the antis however shell out lots of money towards agenda driven outcomes that unfortunately will pass the test of legal standards. Is that funny? It's unfortunate but true and until we can obtain evidence that will stand alone(not bias) we are unarmed. There are a couple out there but accessing is not likely.
Post by: jasnt on June 30, 2019, 07:56:54 PM
Post by: Tbar on June 30, 2019, 08:03:52 PM
What I find funny is your assumptions. Neither of us know what “they” have or don’t have. Also it’s not a lawsuit against the anti’s it wdfw who seem to cave at every lawsuitMy assumptions? Nice assumption!
Post by: bearpaw on June 30, 2019, 08:05:54 PM
Post by: Tbar on June 30, 2019, 08:11:40 PM
he's just :fishin:Fishing for what? I can name the cards that they have sought to play as well as several contacts they have made to generate support. Although that would be poor etiquette, especially if something with merit were to materialize. I would most likely support anything that would lead away from the spin in current predator management.
Post by: Tbar on June 30, 2019, 08:22:57 PM
he's just :fishin:You had/have the entire forum, and others, fishing. Where is the predator lawsuit? You also have sources, correct? This is your topic on your forum, correct? I'll gladly admit where I have been misinformed.
Post by: Tbar on June 30, 2019, 08:26:47 PM
This is exciting news for Washington hunters, a lawsuit is planned to have the court force WDFW to properly manage predators so balanced management will once again occur in Washington. It has become painfully obvious that nothing short of a court order will result in predator management in Washington. This news comes from a capable and reliable source of which will be known when the lawsuit happens this spring. :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL:Court order coming? I'll admit I'm fishing for an update, spring just ended and I didn't hear of the litigation.