Post by: KFhunter on January 08, 2019, 07:52:28 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190109/748a070c72c84a9050593f515fd2476b.jpg)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 08, 2019, 07:54:26 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 09, 2019, 07:38:38 AM
Post by: ribka on January 09, 2019, 09:37:28 AM
Post by: woodswalker on January 09, 2019, 09:41:05 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 09, 2019, 09:47:50 AM
They have been cruising the valley bottom and low hills out of Chewelah for years...and you can sure hear them at night.
:yeah:
I remember they got that dog on sand canyon road a few years back, wasn't it inside city limits? Wasn't very far up that road.
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 10, 2019, 06:14:50 PM
https://www.khq.com/news/idaho_news/colville-woman-shares-concerns-over-stevens-county-wolf-sightings/article_7ffe3608-153e-11e9-b3d3-d32b025d93b8.html
One of the things said was there are 3 times more than required. I maybe a bit early to post the video.
https://www.khq.com/news/officials-warn-of-wolf-packs-approaching-homes-in-stevens-county/video_c80c4a68-152d-11e9-bce6-cbd6c714c3fa.html
Maybe this one.
https://www.khq.com/live/
Post by: TommyH on January 10, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
They have been cruising the valley bottom and low hills out of Chewelah for years...and you can sure hear them at night.
:yeah:
I remember they got that dog on sand canyon road a few years back, wasn't it inside city limits? Wasn't very far up that road.
I think it was on burnt valley rd. The one that had some news report anyways, There may have been others. It was probably about 1/2 mile as the crow flies from the school/city park.
Post by: hunter399 on January 10, 2019, 07:03:16 PM
Was how she said there has been a absent of other wildlife now that wolves have moved in .Sometimes people got to hear from the horse's mouth before they will take it to heart.
Here I will try link.
https://www.khq.com/news/colville-woman-shares-concerns-over-stevens-county-wolf-sightings/video_a0483704-154a-11e9-aa76-dfb2807a8cef.html
Quote from artical
"I've hiked this property next door for 19 years and have had encounters with cougars, with bears and never had a problem. But a pack of wolves really scares me, and I also have encountered the carcasses they leave behind. We don't see wildlife anymore. I haven't' seen one bear on my hikes this year. I've seen bears every year! And I don't see deer tracks anymore either, "explained Micki.
Micki's worried that the wolves are wiping out all the wildlife that she is generally used to seeing and Micki believes that once they run out of wildlife people could be next. Over the last several days and weeks wolf sightings have been on the rise in Stevens County.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 11, 2019, 05:19:34 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on January 11, 2019, 06:34:10 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 11, 2019, 06:54:13 AM
Mitch Friedman from conservation NW can send one of his brave range riders over there to protect the local citizens :chuckle:
You mean the guy with the man bun and a college degree..........? :dunno:
Post by: birddogdad on January 11, 2019, 07:10:11 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 11, 2019, 07:46:20 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 11, 2019, 08:02:00 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 11, 2019, 08:24:33 AM
Its sad when it has come to this:yeah: The old timers would really be confused at this wave of stupidity sweeping over in regards to predators and how they are to be handled.
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2019, 08:43:02 AM
so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?
You can always defend yourself here in the USA against any animal or person no matter if the species is endangered or not*
*the more endangered the species is, the more scrutiny you'll face having killed that animal in self defence.
Post by: birddogdad on January 11, 2019, 08:46:32 AM
so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?
You can always defend yourself here in the USA against any animal or person no matter if the species is endangered or not*
oh no doubt i would, but looking for the link to laws to read here...
*the more endangered the species is, the more scrutiny you'll face having killed that animal in self defence.
Post by: bornhunter on January 11, 2019, 08:50:37 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2019, 09:12:31 AM
oh no doubt i would, but looking for the link to laws to read here...so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?
You can always defend yourself here in the USA against any animal or person no matter if the species is endangered or not*
*the more endangered the species is, the more scrutiny you'll face having killed that animal in self defence.
good place to start
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=16.30
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 11, 2019, 09:16:19 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 11, 2019, 09:22:53 AM
so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?If your life is truly in danger - do you really care what the law is? I sure don't.
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2019, 09:27:08 AM
Washington seems to leave it to the discretion of the police and the courts if there was intent or not. It's a matter of charging for unlawful take, or not to charge, depeding on the circumstances. I could be completely out in left field though.
Thanks to the OP for putting me on this RCW hunt :chuckle:
Utah for example:
R657-63-3. Self Defense.
(1) A person is legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal when the person reasonably believes such action is necessary to protect them self, another person, or a domestic animal against an imminent attack by the wild animal that will likely result in severe bodily injury or death to the victim.
(2)(a) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(i) the nature of the danger;
(ii) the immediacy of the danger;
(iii) the probability that the threatening wild animal will attack;
(iv) the probability that the attack will result in death or serious bodily injury;
(v) the ability to safely avoid the danger;
(vi) the fault of the person in creating the encounter; and
(vii) any previous pattern of aggressive or threatening behavior by the individual wild animal which was known to the person claiming self defense.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (2)(a), a person who is legally located or traveling in a place where attacked or approached by a threatening wild animal is not required to retreat.
(c) In all cases involving a reasonably plausible assertion of self defense, it is presumed the life and safety of a human being is paramount to the life or safety of a wild animal.
(3)(a) A person shall notify the division within 12 hours after killing or wounding a wild animal under Subsection (1).
(b) No wild animal killed pursuant to Subsection (1) or the parts thereof may be removed from the site, repositioned, retained, sold, or transferred without written authorization from the division. (4)(a) A person is not legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly provokes or attracts the wild animal into a situation in which it is probable it will threaten the person, another person, or a domestic animal. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(a), a person lawfully pursuing a cougar or bear with dogs may seriously injure or kill that cougar or bear when they reasonably believe such action is necessary to protect them self or another person against an imminent attack that will likely result in severe bodily injury or death.
(5) A person that kills or seriously injures a wild animal that enters a home, tent, camper, or other permanent or temporary living structure occupied by a person is presumed to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear the wild animal's entry presented an imminent threat of severe bodily injury or death to an occupant of the structure, provided the intruding wild animal is:
(a) reasonably perceived as an animal physically capable of causing severe bodily injury or death to a human being; and
(b) killed or injured while attempting to enter, entering, or occupying the involved structure.
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 11, 2019, 09:29:45 AM
so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?
You can always defend yourself here in the USA against any animal or person no matter if the species is endangered or not*
*the more endangered the species is, the more scrutiny you'll face having killed that animal in self defence.
While I can't speak for other's. I have a pretty good idea of the amount of cover fire the "Gramma" would be laying down if her dawg was threatened. She might not hit anything but.
I would guess the same for a little Brittney as well.
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2019, 09:33:36 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2019, 09:36:05 AM
on second thought the Utah law may be more restrictive with its built in challenges
Post by: jasnt on January 11, 2019, 09:45:30 AM
:mgun:so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?
You can always defend yourself here in the USA against any animal or person no matter if the species is endangered or not*
*the more endangered the species is, the more scrutiny you'll face having killed that animal in self defence.
While I can't speak for other's. I have a pretty good idea of the amount of cover fire the "Gramma" would be laying down if her dawg was threatened. She might not hit anything but.
I would guess the same for a little Brittney as well.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 11, 2019, 09:50:04 AM
I think we should bring this up to our legislators, but I want to make 100% sure we don't have something like the example from Utah before I call Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers office.If you want to influence state law I would not bother calling a federal legislator.
on second thought the Utah law may be more restrictive with its built in challenges
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2019, 11:10:03 AM
Short, Shelly
Maycumber, Jacquelin
Kretz, Joel
Post by: hunter399 on January 11, 2019, 11:49:36 AM
http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/wa-rule-allows-killing-of-wolves-attacking-livestock/
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2019, 11:52:42 AM
Not sure if this is still in effect.Cause it was in effect with our former directed of WDFW.
http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/wa-rule-allows-killing-of-wolves-attacking-livestock/
that's policy
the OP wanted law, and I came up short finding it, so has everyone else to this point.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 11, 2019, 12:55:27 PM
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.36.030
Post by: KFhunter on January 11, 2019, 02:25:09 PM
I offer this as bait.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.36.030
nice find
That might be the legal root that allows policy on killing wildlife threatening human safety or causing property damage.
Post by: bornhunter on January 11, 2019, 09:31:26 PM
so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?If your life is truly in danger - do you really care what the law is? I sure don't.
Idahohuntr is the winner! Finally someone nailed it. So your life is in danger and you are going to stop and wonder, gee is it unlawful to protect myself or my loved ones? Nope, you gonna burn powder! :mgun: :mgun: :mgun:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 12, 2019, 02:40:20 AM
Of course we can speculate that we'd all go Rambo when the chips are down to protect our family. We'd also like to know we won't be spending time and money to defend our actions after the smoke clears.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 12, 2019, 03:43:40 AM
Quote
220-440-050
Killing wildlife for personal safety.
(1) The fish and wildlife commission is authorized to classify wildlife as game, as endangered or protected species, or as a predatory bird consistent with RCW 77.08.010 and 77.12.020. The commission is also authorized, pursuant to RCW 77.36.030, to establish the limitations and conditions on killing or trapping wildlife that is threatening human safety.
(2) The conditions for killing wildlife vary, based primarily on the classification of the wildlife species and the imminent nature of the threat to personal safety. Additional conditions defined by the department may also be important, depending on individual situations. Killing wildlife for personal safety is subject to all other state and federal laws including, but not limited to, Titles 77 RCW and 220 WAC.
(3) Killing wildlife for personal safety.
(a) It is permissible to kill wild animals engaged in the physical act of attacking a person.
(b) It is permissible to kill game animals posing an immediate threat of physical harm to a person.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-050
And
Quote
"Immediate threat of physical harm" means that animal-to-human bodily contact is imminent; and the animal is in attack posture/mode.
"Game animal" means wild animals that shall not be hunted except as authorized by the commission.
"Physical act of attacking" means actual or imminent animal-to-human or animal-to-animal physical contact.
"Wild animal" means those species of the class Mammalia whose members exist in Washington in a wild state.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-020
Here is wolves v. domestic animals in areas "where the gray wolf is not listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act." Seems to be private property, though, or at least how WDFW reads it.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-080
No other mentions of wolves, specifically, in that chapter, except as to payment of claims, unless I missed it.
This was not an exhaustive search and does not cover any federal regulations.
One thing to note is that it appears that you are more protected against "game animals," such as deer, which requires only the "threat," whereas protection from wolves (presumably, "wild animals") only materializes once they are "physically attacking."
If I am understanding this correctly, this is perverse and backwards and should be rectified by the commission.
The other thing to keep in mind is that your interpretation of that gobbledygook does not matter after the fact.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2019, 07:36:41 AM
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 12, 2019, 07:44:03 AM
You are making this way too complicated if you are truly only concerned about defending yourself or your family from a legitimate threat/attack from a wild animal. I don't need to read a bunch of code to know with 100% certainty I can legally defend myself from a wild animal that I reasonably fear is going to attack me or another person.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
WHAAA
They shouldn't post it on here with photos and a complete detailed description.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 12, 2019, 09:26:29 AM
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Statements of the obvious. Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities are.
Post by: bearpaw on January 12, 2019, 10:16:16 AM
I plan to build a wolf proof kennel here soon.
I'm building a wolf proof kennel soon too. I am only 3 miles out of Colville, close to the gun club, a neighbor only about 1/4 mile away has trail cam photos of wolves in his back yard. Wolf numbers are really exploding now, people's only chance is self defense, WDFW has totally failed NE Washington, 100% pathetic! :bash:
One of my outfitting areas in Idaho is in primary wolf country, but those wolves are hunted and rarely come close to human inhabited areas, I am more afraid of my dogs being eaten by wolves in my back yard in NE Washington. These WA wolves have little fear! :bash: :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2019, 11:05:18 AM
I posted that too. 100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Statements of the obvious. Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.
:tup:
If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.
Post by: Cougartail on January 12, 2019, 11:19:28 AM
I posted that too. 100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Statements of the obvious. Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.
:tup:
If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.
Regardless of law, who is judging you is far more important. Unless you come to court minus one arm in King County you would not be justified in killing a wolf. The threshold of proof would be far less in NE Washington. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on January 12, 2019, 05:37:05 PM
I posted that too. 100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Statements of the obvious. Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.
:tup:
If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.
We all understand that ^ above and I don't think anyone is looking for a legal loophole in order to shoot wolves and get away with it :rolleyes:
My issue is that its all policy, and according to how endangered the species is the policy varies <-- I have a problem with this because why should we have an easier time shooting a cougar and a much harder time shooting a wolf or grizz regarding our own self defense in the courts.
What we don't want is people hesitating to defend themselves because they aren't sure what the "law" is, and now we find out there really isn't a law, just a broad all encompassing authority for WDFW to make up policy as they see fit.
When the rubber meets the road, yes I'll defend myself laws be dammed, but what happens next? Do I get drug through the coals because it was a wolf? or do I get off easy because it was a cougar?
What happens if I shoot a grizz!!?? :yike:
I'd really get drug through the ringer, maybe I should hesitate. one.. more....second...... just in case the bear veers off at the very last moment.....oh wow!!! too late I'm mauled!!! that hurts!!!...dangit!
Post by: buckfvr on January 12, 2019, 05:42:03 PM
Post by: bornhunter on January 12, 2019, 09:30:07 PM
You are making this way too complicated if you are truly only concerned about defending yourself or your family from a legitimate threat/attack from a wild animal. I don't need to read a bunch of code to know with 100% certainty I can legally defend myself from a wild animal that I reasonably fear is going to attack me or another person.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 12, 2019, 10:46:36 PM
I don't know why folks continue to try and make this hard. There is not a damn bit of difference whether it's a cougar, a grizzly, a wolf, a meth head, a unicorn with rainbows shooting out its ass - if it is going to attack you and harm or kill you - you are 100% legal to defend yourself. Could there be greater scrutiny for an endangered animal? An investigation? Sure. Follow step 2 that I outlined above...but there is no difference in law or policy or anything...protect yourself. :tup:I posted that too. 100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Statements of the obvious. Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.
:tup:
If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.
We all understand that ^ above and I don't think anyone is looking for a legal loophole in order to shoot wolves and get away with it :rolleyes:
My issue is that its all policy, and according to how endangered the species is the policy varies <-- I have a problem with this because why should we have an easier time shooting a cougar and a much harder time shooting a wolf or grizz regarding our own self defense in the courts.
What we don't want is people hesitating to defend themselves because they aren't sure what the "law" is, and now we find out there really isn't a law, just a broad all encompassing authority for WDFW to make up policy as they see fit.
When the rubber meets the road, yes I'll defend myself laws be dammed, but what happens next? Do I get drug through the coals because it was a wolf? or do I get off easy because it was a cougar?
What happens if I shoot a grizz!!?? :yike:
I'd really get drug through the ringer, maybe I should hesitate. one.. more....second...... just in case the bear veers off at the very last moment.....oh wow!!! too late I'm mauled!!! that hurts!!!...dangit!
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 13, 2019, 10:17:59 AM
I posted that too. 100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Statements of the obvious. Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.
:tup:
If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.
Could you also see the need to know the letter of the law to prevent being made example of in marginal cases, where your personal feelings or gut reaction matter less than a prosecutor's interpretation of the circumstances you faced. I think you can.
I don't understand the need to argue for ignorance is bliss.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on January 13, 2019, 11:16:43 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2019, 11:27:54 AM
I don't know why folks continue to try and make this hard. There is not a damn bit of difference whether it's a cougar, a grizzly, a wolf, a meth head, a unicorn with rainbows shooting out its ass - if it is going to attack you and harm or kill you - you are 100% legal to defend yourself. Could there be greater scrutiny for an endangered animal? An investigation? Sure. Follow step 2 that I outlined above...but there is no difference in law or policy or anything...protect yourself. :tup:I posted that too. 100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Statements of the obvious. Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.
:tup:
If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.
We all understand that ^ above and I don't think anyone is looking for a legal loophole in order to shoot wolves and get away with it :rolleyes:
My issue is that its all policy, and according to how endangered the species is the policy varies <-- I have a problem with this because why should we have an easier time shooting a cougar and a much harder time shooting a wolf or grizz regarding our own self defense in the courts.
What we don't want is people hesitating to defend themselves because they aren't sure what the "law" is, and now we find out there really isn't a law, just a broad all encompassing authority for WDFW to make up policy as they see fit.
When the rubber meets the road, yes I'll defend myself laws be dammed, but what happens next? Do I get drug through the coals because it was a wolf? or do I get off easy because it was a cougar?
What happens if I shoot a grizz!!?? :yike:
I'd really get drug through the ringer, maybe I should hesitate. one.. more....second...... just in case the bear veers off at the very last moment.....oh wow!!! too late I'm mauled!!! that hurts!!!...dangit!
Did you read the whole thread? See reply #16
You see we've already moved beyond what you're saying and started a new conversation, but you seem to be stuck in the past. Catch up man.
Everybody knows you don't have to let a predator chew on you. :DOH:
Post by: jstone on January 13, 2019, 11:42:47 AM
Stupidity.!!!! At its finest
Post by: rasbo on January 13, 2019, 11:47:15 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2019, 11:53:41 AM
R657-63-3. Self Defense.
(1) A person is legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal when the person reasonably believes such action is necessary to protect them self, another person, or a domestic animal against an imminent attack by the wild animal that will likely result in severe bodily injury or death to the victim.
Notice that it doesn't specify any difference from one wild animal to another, the law applies equally to all wild animals regarding defending yourself, your pet, your livestock or another person.
(2)(a) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
Ok below are the challenges to determine if it was justified or not, if we knew these challenges ahead of time we could better articulate what happened to the responding officers, we could run down the list
(i) the nature of the danger; Officer, the bear was approaching, we were shouting and waiving but the bear kept coming closer
(ii) the immediacy of the danger; Officer, the bear was close enough that it could have been on us in seconds
(iii) the probability that the threatening wild animal will attack; Officer, the bear ignored a warning shot and kept coming closer
(iv) the probability that the attack will result in death or serious bodily injury; Officer it was a big nasty bear capable of killing us
(v) the ability to safely avoid the danger; Officer, we were caught out in the open with no vehicle or escape possible
(vi) the fault of the person in creating the encounter; and Officer, we had no idea this bear was in the area
This next one is awesome, it lessens the weight of the above challenges and makes self defense less restrictive.
(vii) any previous pattern of aggressive or threatening behavior by the individual wild animal which was known to the person claiming self defense. Officer, this bear has charged us before (boom! case closed)
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (2)(a), a person who is legally located or traveling in a place where attacked or approached by a threatening wild animal is not required to retreat.
(c) In all cases involving a reasonably plausible assertion of self defense, it is presumed the life and safety of a human being is paramount to the life or safety of a wild animal.
Ok the challenges having been listed above, we move on to the after action reporting requirements below
(3)(a) A person shall notify the division within 12 hours after killing or wounding a wild animal under Subsection (1).
(b) No wild animal killed pursuant to Subsection (1) or the parts thereof may be removed from the site, repositioned, retained, sold, or transferred without written authorization from the division. (4)(a) A person is not legally justified in killing or seriously injuring a threatening wild animal under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly provokes or attracts the wild animal into a situation in which it is probable it will threaten the person, another person, or a domestic animal. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(a), a person lawfully pursuing a cougar or bear with dogs may seriously injure or kill that cougar or bear when they reasonably believe such action is necessary to protect them self or another person against an imminent attack that will likely result in severe bodily injury or death.
A blanket that covers any and all attacks within a domicile.
(5) A person that kills or seriously injures a wild animal that enters a home, tent, camper, or other permanent or temporary living structure occupied by a person is presumed to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear the wild animal's entry presented an imminent threat of severe bodily injury or death to an occupant of the structure, provided the intruding wild animal is:
(a) reasonably perceived as an animal physically capable of causing severe bodily injury or death to a human being; and
(b) killed or injured while attempting to enter, entering, or occupying the involved structure.
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2019, 01:36:58 PM
I don't know why folks continue to try and make this hard. There is not a damn bit of difference whether it's a cougar, a grizzly, a wolf, a meth head, a unicorn with rainbows shooting out its ass - if it is going to attack you and harm or kill you - you are 100% legal to defend yourself. Could there be greater scrutiny for an endangered animal? An investigation? Sure. Follow step 2 that I outlined above...but there is no difference in law or policy or anything...protect yourself. :tup:
I think your issue is you don't want people defending their furbabys from wild animals, especially large predators like wolves or grizz.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 13, 2019, 09:05:10 PM
:chuckle: Tell that to the coyote I shot this afternoon...392 yards is closer than my wife likes them to her dog.
I don't know why folks continue to try and make this hard. There is not a damn bit of difference whether it's a cougar, a grizzly, a wolf, a meth head, a unicorn with rainbows shooting out its ass - if it is going to attack you and harm or kill you - you are 100% legal to defend yourself. Could there be greater scrutiny for an endangered animal? An investigation? Sure. Follow step 2 that I outlined above...but there is no difference in law or policy or anything...protect yourself. :tup:
I think your issue is you don't want people defending their furbabys from wild animals, especially large predators like wolves or grizz.
The only rationale I can come up with for knowing the nuance of the law is if you are not actually facing the threat of harm by the animal but you still want to kill it.I posted that too. 100% certain you can legally defend yourself from physical injury or death...in any state against any animal.
I offer two very simple tips:
1. In any case where you feel a wild animal (or another human) poses an immediate danger to you or your family - kill it.
2. Do not provide any information about the incident to anyone except through your recently retained attorney.
Step 2 is obviously very dependent on the circumstances...but if there is any doubt, go with step 2. :chuckle:
Statements of the obvious. Some people want to know what their legal rights and responsibilities.
:tup:
If you are looking for some loophole or minimum threshold that justifies shooting a wolf when you are not really in danger of death or physical harm then I could see a need to know every letter of applicable laws.
Could you also see the need to know the letter of the law to prevent being made example of in marginal cases, where your personal feelings or gut reaction matter less than a prosecutor's interpretation of the circumstances you faced. I think you can.
I don't understand the need to argue for ignorance is bliss.
Alternatively, perhaps you are arguing that its critical to know the nuance of the law so you can explain yourself to the authorities afterwards in a way that minimizes being made an example of?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 13, 2019, 09:14:07 PM
(a) reasonably perceived as an animal physically capable of causing severe bodily injury or death to a human being; and
I'd say that would include any mammal. They are all capable of having rabies and the only way to know for sure is to kill them and have them tested.
Post by: KFhunter on January 13, 2019, 10:22:34 PM
The only rationale I can come up with for knowing the nuance of the law is if you are not actually facing the threat of harm by the animal but you still want to kill it.
Oh ya, my favorite past time is trying to sneak up to wolves and grizzlies so I can set up a forced self defense scenario, then after I force the grizzly to charge me I shoot it. Sometimes they don't want to charge me and just run off, so I gotta chase em down and poke em with a sharp stick. Wolves are really hard though, I have to get nekked on my hands and knees and mew like a calf then they'll come in close and I can 'defend' myself... :rolleyes:
perhaps you are arguing that its critical to know the nuance of the law so you can explain yourself to the authorities afterwards in a way that minimizes being made an example of?
That's exactly right, knowing the law is always encouraged, knowing it before an attack occurs removes a lot of doubt and hesitation on when and how you should react.
All persons engaged in outdoor activities should be prepared to take care of themselves in case of accident, injury or wild animal attack and they should know the laws.
You throw this in my face as if I want to somehow 'massage' my story to make sure I get off, the opposite is true. I want the law clear and concise so I don't do something contrary to it.
Are you seriously arguing in favor of ignorance?
Currently our law does not cover pets at all, the right to defend a pet rests solely upon WDFW's discretion, which depends on the animal doing the attacking. So I could defend my beloved dog against a mt lion but not a wolf depending on where I'm at in the state?? How retarded is that? So all you Western Washington folks you have to watch a wolf shred your dog, but over here in Eastern WA I can shoot that wolf (but only one wolf, the others can still chew my dog) If it's a Grizz is chewing our dog...we're hooped!
I know that most any dog lover is going to defend their pet law be dammed, a law like Utah's makes no difference between human, pet or livestock, and that IDHntr is why you're attacking this idea with everything you have.
The idea of some rancher shooting a wolf to save their calf appalls you, it's well known you hate cattle and hate them even more when they're on public land.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 03:47:42 AM
The only rationale I can come up with for knowing the nuance of the law is if you are not actually facing the threat of harm by the animal but you still want to kill it.
If you are wanting to shoot a wolf in WA in a situation that does not fit the requirements for defense against wild animals, you probably shouldn't be posting your rationale on the internet, and advocating for the same is against HW ToS.
:twocents:
Alternatively, perhaps you are arguing that its critical to know the nuance of the law so you can explain yourself to the authorities afterwards in a way that minimizes being made an example of?
Eureka. Through an attorney, of course.
And of course, to minimize encounters that would put myself and others in my charge in the heightened threshold of danger defined by WDFW for self defense against wild animals versus game animals. Nobody wants that.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 14, 2019, 05:07:12 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 14, 2019, 06:49:38 AM
Post by: hunter399 on January 14, 2019, 08:42:58 AM
Common sense. :chuckle: :chuckle:
:stirthepot:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2019, 09:00:04 AM
If faced with a real threat - we all agree, shoot first. And it sounds like we all agree that you should communicate nothing except through a qualified attorney. None of us non-attorneys should even think of trying to interpret and apply the law to a scenario we are involved in...thats how guys end up in more legal trouble than they ever bargained for! A scarier scenario would be folks THINKING they understand and can apply/interpret the law and feel confident speaking to a legal authority about some incident they were involved in.The only rationale I can come up with for knowing the nuance of the law is if you are not actually facing the threat of harm by the animal but you still want to kill it.
If you are wanting to shoot a wolf in WA in a situation that does not fit the requirements for defense against wild animals, you probably shouldn't be posting your rationale on the internet, and advocating for the same is against HW ToS.
:twocents:Alternatively, perhaps you are arguing that its critical to know the nuance of the law so you can explain yourself to the authorities afterwards in a way that minimizes being made an example of?
Eureka. Through an attorney, of course.
And of course, to minimize encounters that would put myself and others in my charge in the heightened threshold of danger defined by WDFW for self defense against wild animals versus game animals. Nobody wants that.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 09:00:23 AM
https://www.wfla.com/weather/super-blood-wolf-moon-what-to-expect/1700198968
Save yourselves!
:chuckle:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 09:04:28 AM
If faced with a real threat - we all agree, shoot first.
As defined by
1) Ignorance?
2) Some internet helpful person?
3) Knowledge of the actual law?
Your statement gets it wrong. In WA, "actual physical attack" appears to be the standard for gray wolf self-defense compared to "threat" of attack, as you state, and which is the standard for "game animals" such as cougar and black bear.
I'll take #3, thanks.
Post by: hunter399 on January 14, 2019, 09:24:20 AM
I'm telling you first blood ,shoot to kill. :chuckle:
If faced with a real threat - we all agree, shoot first.
As defined by
1) Ignorance?
2) Some internet helpful person?
3) Knowledge of the actual law?
Your statement gets it wrong. In WA, "actual physical attack" appears to be the standard for gray wolf self-defense compared to "threat" of attack, as you state, and which is the standard for "game animals" such as cougar and black bear.
I'll take #3, thanks.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2019, 09:41:06 AM
As defined by my personal evaluation of the situation. If I feel I'm being put at risk of physical harm or death - I'm shooting. I really, truly could not care less what WA says or doesn't say. We all have an absolute right to defend ourselves. My lawyer will respond to any inquiry by investigators - and he or she is going to know the law a whole lot better than me. But I say that as someone who truly is only going to shoot when I'm faced with a real threat...not some bs I saw a wolf and it scared me so I shot it as it was running away.
If faced with a real threat - we all agree, shoot first.
As defined by
1) Ignorance?
2) Some internet helpful person?
3) Knowledge of the actual law?
Your statement gets it wrong. In WA, "actual physical attack" appears to be the standard for gray wolf self-defense compared to "threat" of attack, as you state, and which is the standard for "game animals" such as cougar and black bear.
I'll take #3, thanks.
And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions? Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite?? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 09:52:10 AM
And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions? Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite?? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
No. I will abide by the law as written, recognize the increased burden on me regarding the factors that the WDFW regards as an "actual physical attack," and I will seek to mitigate getting into such a situation.
You can proceed to operate on ignorance of the law, which, of course, is universally recognized as not a valid defense, and which, of course, is your perfect right.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
For those who don't want to proceed on ignorance.
Here is the WAC generally on wildlife v. humans.Quote220-440-050
Killing wildlife for personal safety.
(1) The fish and wildlife commission is authorized to classify wildlife as game, as endangered or protected species, or as a predatory bird consistent with RCW 77.08.010 and 77.12.020. The commission is also authorized, pursuant to RCW 77.36.030, to establish the limitations and conditions on killing or trapping wildlife that is threatening human safety.
(2) The conditions for killing wildlife vary, based primarily on the classification of the wildlife species and the imminent nature of the threat to personal safety. Additional conditions defined by the department may also be important, depending on individual situations. Killing wildlife for personal safety is subject to all other state and federal laws including, but not limited to, Titles 77 RCW and 220 WAC.
(3) Killing wildlife for personal safety.
(a) It is permissible to kill wild animals engaged in the physical act of attacking a person.
(b) It is permissible to kill game animals posing an immediate threat of physical harm to a person.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-050
AndQuote"Immediate threat of physical harm" means that animal-to-human bodily contact is imminent; and the animal is in attack posture/mode.
"Game animal" means wild animals that shall not be hunted except as authorized by the commission.
"Physical act of attacking" means actual or imminent animal-to-human or animal-to-animal physical contact.
"Wild animal" means those species of the class Mammalia whose members exist in Washington in a wild state.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-020
Here is wolves v. domestic animals in areas "where the gray wolf is not listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act." Seems to be private property, though, or at least how WDFW reads it.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-440-080
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Cougartail on January 14, 2019, 10:30:50 AM
Outside of that, it's story time. :chuckle:
That being said, wild animals rarely attack full grown men as to harm them. False charges yes. And wolves are way down on that list. Better be a good storyteller if you shoot a wolf. The odds of winning the lottery is greater than being attacked by a wolf.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 10:32:23 AM
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2019, 11:26:26 AM
Remember, the burden of proof that the attack wasn't "imminent" lies with the state. Most times the only evidence is foot prints.
Outside of that, it's story time. :chuckle:
That being said, wild animals rarely attack full grown men as to harm them. False charges yes. And wolves are way down on that list. Better be a good storyteller if you shoot a wolf. The odds of winning the lottery is greater than being attacked by a wolf.
I beg to differ, wolves chased a government worker up a tree and orders were sent to rescue teams to shoot any wolves still present around her tree.
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2019, 11:51:00 AM
Remember, the burden of proof that the attack wasn't "imminent" lies with the state.
It sure won't feel that way when in court
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2019, 01:10:23 PM
You have this misguided notion that by reading the law you are going to have a more successful legal defense if it comes to that...and I'm telling you it will make no difference. Defend yourself from the threat then hire a lawyer...trying to be Perry Mason is only going to get you in more hot water. It's cute on an internet forum, but in a courtroom you better have kept your mouth shut and only let your lawyer talk - and your lawyer is not going to give a damn whether you read a law and did some google searches about self defense. :chuckle:And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions? Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite?? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
No. I will abide by the law as written, recognize the increased burden on me regarding the factors that the WDFW regards as an "actual physical attack," and I will seek to mitigate getting into such a situation.
You can proceed to operate on ignorance of the law, which, of course, is universally recognized as not a valid defense, and which, of course, is your perfect right.
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2019, 01:13:03 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 02:07:58 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 02:10:29 PM
You have this misguided notion that by reading the law you are going to have a more successful legal defense if it comes to that...and I'm telling you it will make no difference. :chuckle:And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions? Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite?? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
No. I will abide by the law as written, recognize the increased burden on me regarding the factors that the WDFW regards as an "actual physical attack," and I will seek to mitigate getting into such a situation.
You can proceed to operate on ignorance of the law, which, of course, is universally recognized as not a valid defense, and which, of course, is your perfect right.
Keep arguing for ignorance is bliss.
I prefer to use knowledge of the law to avoid the problem entirely, which has been the point, articulated seven ways from Sunday.
:chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2019, 02:32:06 PM
What problem are you going to avoid entirely with your knowledge of the law?You have this misguided notion that by reading the law you are going to have a more successful legal defense if it comes to that...and I'm telling you it will make no difference. :chuckle:And with your last statement - does that really have any bearing on your actions? Your going to wait for the wolf to gets its teeth in you...but if its a cougar you will shoot before it takes a bite?? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
No. I will abide by the law as written, recognize the increased burden on me regarding the factors that the WDFW regards as an "actual physical attack," and I will seek to mitigate getting into such a situation.
You can proceed to operate on ignorance of the law, which, of course, is universally recognized as not a valid defense, and which, of course, is your perfect right.
Keep arguing for ignorance is bliss.
I prefer to use knowledge of the law to avoid the problem entirely, which has been the point, articulated seven ways from Sunday.
:chuckle:
Familiarity with the law won't matter in a legitimate self defense scenario - and it won't matter in the aftermath because you should not say anything to anyone other than your lawyer.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 02:41:35 PM
KFHunter's idea of mewling nude in a pasture comes to mind, for starters.
:chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on January 14, 2019, 03:08:00 PM
If we did something like Utah it would take all the decision making out of WDFW's hands, they would still be the investigatory agency, but the law would be set in stone for all to know.
A good law reads like a guide book or SOP (standard operating procedure) and levels the playing field, a bad law leaves everything open for discussion and whimsy, which is what we have now.
Post by: bearpaw on January 14, 2019, 03:22:44 PM
Post by: jasnt on January 14, 2019, 03:58:12 PM
I want to change the current law, not try to understand this policy that we have now which can change at WDFW and the commission's discretion.:yeah:
If we did something like Utah it would take all the decision making out of WDFW's hands, they would still be the investigatory agency, but the law would be set in stone for all to know.
A good law reads like a guide book or SOP (standard operating procedure) and levels the playing field, a bad law leaves everything open for discussion and whimsy, which is what we have now.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 05:19:15 PM
The first step is knowing what we have now. Is that the reason for the resistance?
Post by: hunter399 on January 14, 2019, 06:04:54 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 14, 2019, 06:50:14 PM
Sop really I hear about sop enough at work .:chuckle: True.
But I've already provided the only SOP anyone who isn't interested in obtaining a google law degree needs:
1. Stop the threat (i.e., shoot and kill the wolf/wolves)
2. Contact your attorney and say nothing to anyone else...especially not a law enforcement officer.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 14, 2019, 10:15:46 PM
:chuckle:
Post by: Bango skank on January 14, 2019, 10:47:48 PM
Sop really I hear about sop enough at work .:chuckle: True.
But I've already provided the only SOP anyone who isn't interested in obtaining a google law degree needs:
1. Stop the threat (i.e., shoot and kill the wolf/wolves)
2. say nothing to anyone
FTFY
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2019, 08:03:13 AM
Post by: PA BEN on February 18, 2019, 12:07:00 PM
so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?http://www.co.stevens.wa.us/commissioners/Commissioners%20Documents/Resolutions/2014/46-2014%20Advise%20Public%20Regarding%20Rights%20.pdf#page=1
Post by: KFhunter on February 25, 2019, 10:11:44 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190226/88cbca946e3e3c4ba126f1c55582bd75.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnnw on February 26, 2019, 06:44:26 AM
Post by: Bango skank on February 26, 2019, 06:57:25 AM
there were 3 in the road at 1pm on Haller creek sunday. My brother lives near arden and has had them around the house just off 395 for months now. WDFW was asking about sightings last month
I live just off haller creek. Not the first time weve had them running around here. Now that i think about it, it was sunday right as it was getting dark that my neighbor called me and said her dog was acting really keyed up, that she thought something had to be prowling around outside. I figured she probably smelled a lion nearby, but now i wonder. Maybe ill go check my cameras today.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2019, 07:29:43 AM
so i have researched before but cannot find rules on protection of pets, yourself if confronted by these wolves... anyone have a link to the LAWS?http://www.co.stevens.wa.us/commissioners/Commissioners%20Documents/Resolutions/2014/46-2014%20Advise%20Public%20Regarding%20Rights%20.pdf#page=1
Are the state or feds legally bound by this?
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 11:50:32 AM
These are obviously different wolves than the wolves with the kill just outside Kettle Falls. How many packs are in Stevens County? :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 11:58:02 AM
Post up the coordinates and let the Colville tribe have at em!!!
The north half is only in Stevens County between the Kettle and Columbia (the wedge)
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 12:15:30 PM
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 26, 2019, 12:24:18 PM
Post up the coordinates and let the Colville tribe have at em!!!
The north half is only in Stevens County between the Kettle and Columbia (the wedge)
I might have to host a hunt camp. @ PlateauNDN
Post by: Bango skank on February 26, 2019, 12:33:51 PM
Post up the coordinates and let the Colville tribe have at em!!!
The north half is only in Stevens County between the Kettle and Columbia (the wedge)
??? Ferry county, unit 101 is north half
Post by: PlateauNDN on February 26, 2019, 12:37:17 PM
Post up the coordinates and let the Colville tribe have at em!!!
The north half is only in Stevens County between the Kettle and Columbia (the wedge)
I might have to host a hunt camp. @ PlateauNDN
:IBCOOL:
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 12:40:07 PM
Post up the coordinates and let the Colville tribe have at em!!!
The north half is only in Stevens County between the Kettle and Columbia (the wedge)
??? Ferry county, unit 101 is north half
105 and 204 are also north half
Post by: Bango skank on February 26, 2019, 12:43:05 PM
Post up the coordinates and let the Colville tribe have at em!!!
The north half is only in Stevens County between the Kettle and Columbia (the wedge)
??? Ferry county, unit 101 is north half
105 and 204 are also north half
Yeah, but you said only stevens county
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 12:52:22 PM
Post up the coordinates and let the Colville tribe have at em!!!
The north half is only in Stevens County between the Kettle and Columbia (the wedge)
??? Ferry county, unit 101 is north half
105 and 204 are also north half
Yeah, but you said only stevens county
The topic title is "Stevens County" What i meant is that the only place in Stevens Cpounty that's in the north half is GMU 105. Sorry if I confused anyone.
Post by: Bango skank on February 26, 2019, 07:39:26 PM
Wolves spotted between Arden and Blue Creek again right in the valley bottom, they were seen in the same exact spot two days in a row, so probably another kill.
These are obviously different wolves than the wolves with the kill just outside Kettle Falls. How many packs are in Stevens County? :bash:
Do you know how many and of what colors? Curious if its the same wolves that were on haller creek rd sunday afternoon.
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 07:41:31 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 26, 2019, 10:44:41 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 10:48:57 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 26, 2019, 11:49:02 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on February 26, 2019, 11:55:25 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 11:58:50 PM
looks like boulder
I think he mentioned Haller creek somewhere.
Post by: huntnnw on February 27, 2019, 12:00:11 AM
Post by: Bango skank on February 27, 2019, 06:44:58 AM
From a friend Sunday
What, is his gas pedal broken???
Post by: Bango skank on February 27, 2019, 07:18:45 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 27, 2019, 09:48:05 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 27, 2019, 09:51:17 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 27, 2019, 09:56:31 AM
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 28, 2019, 07:15:25 AM
https://coxrare.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/coyote-vest.png?w=1200&h=627&crop=1
Post by: nwwanderer on February 28, 2019, 07:28:38 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 28, 2019, 09:24:08 AM
OK, thanks. I look out into the fields out there every time I go by, expecting to see some. Me and my oldest saw some tracks out Sand Canyon Rd in the National Forest, just above the snowmobile rig parking.the wolves have been hanging around Sand Canyon a bunch this winter.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 28, 2019, 09:57:17 AM
Post by: bearpaw on February 28, 2019, 10:02:49 AM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 28, 2019, 10:06:53 AM
Anybody using these?
https://coxrare.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/coyote-vest.png?w=1200&h=627&crop=1
Nice.🤣
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 28, 2019, 10:13:53 AM
A chopper was in the valley again earlier this week one of the days wolves were being seen.Rumor has it they were trying to herd them to where the deer are so they don't starve.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on February 28, 2019, 10:15:01 AM
A chopper was in the valley again earlier this week one of the days wolves were being seen.Rumor has it they were trying to herd them to where the deer are so they don't starve.
🤣
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 28, 2019, 11:12:40 AM
That rumor is falseA chopper was in the valley again earlier this week one of the days wolves were being seen.Rumor has it they were trying to herd them to where the deer are so they don't starve.
Post by: X-Force on February 28, 2019, 11:19:29 AM
That rumor is falseA chopper was in the valley again earlier this week one of the days wolves were being seen.Rumor has it they were trying to herd them to where the deer are so they don't starve.
I dont know how you can say that WAcoyote... rumor has it you were in the passenger seat guiding the pilot into the pack with gps tracking. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 28, 2019, 11:28:01 AM
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 28, 2019, 12:15:03 PM
Post by: kodiak 907 on February 28, 2019, 07:36:23 PM
They have been cruising the valley bottom and low hills out of Chewelah for years...and you can sure hear them at night.
:yeah:
I remember they got that dog on sand canyon road a few years back, wasn't it inside city limits? Wasn't very far up that road.
During my spring bear hunt a couple years ago, I camped up sand canyon and had a few come right up to the tent. It was strange, they didn’t seem afraid at all.
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2019, 03:52:26 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190301/b7a2b43ce32ca499912db93dfd67dcc4.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190301/eca27635ba06762df527e820e4762dec.jpg)
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2019, 04:06:09 PM
People are literally seeing wolves almost daily somewhere close to Colville.
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2019, 04:08:22 PM
You're on borrowed time, so am I as I've got a few head of cows and a dog, wolves are 1/2 mile away.
Post by: Bob33 on March 01, 2019, 04:08:28 PM
Three wolves spotted a couple days ago just a short distance from the gun club outside Colville not far from my place, I'm hoping the weather breaks so I can get a high fence up before they find my hounds! :yike:"Anyone know how a hole got cut in the gun club fence?"
People are literally seeing wolves almost daily somewhere close to Colville.
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2019, 04:16:10 PM
Three wolves spotted a couple days ago just a short distance from the gun club outside Colville not far from my place, I'm hoping the weather breaks so I can get a high fence up before they find my hounds! :yike:"Anyone know how a hole got cut in the gun club fence?"
People are literally seeing wolves almost daily somewhere close to Colville.
Call me stupid, I missed your point? :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on March 01, 2019, 05:02:29 PM
How in the world did that wolf ever get onto our gun range with all the shooters here?Three wolves spotted a couple days ago just a short distance from the gun club outside Colville not far from my place, I'm hoping the weather breaks so I can get a high fence up before they find my hounds! :yike:"Anyone know how a hole got cut in the gun club fence?"
People are literally seeing wolves almost daily somewhere close to Colville.
Call me stupid, I missed your point? :dunno:
Post by: Bango skank on March 02, 2019, 12:00:24 PM
Wolves at Walmart
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190301/b7a2b43ce32ca499912db93dfd67dcc4.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190301/eca27635ba06762df527e820e4762dec.jpg)
With any luck, one of the ever present panhandlers posted up at the wally world parking lot exit will be our first fatal wolf attack.
Post by: syoungs on March 02, 2019, 12:08:46 PM
They have been cruising the valley bottom and low hills out of Chewelah for years...and you can sure hear them at night.
:yeah:
I remember they got that dog on sand canyon road a few years back, wasn't it inside city limits? Wasn't very far up that road.
During my spring bear hunt a couple years ago, I camped up sand canyon and had a few come right up to the tent. It was strange, they didn’t seem afraid at all.
Yeah ive seen them on sand canyon, and tracks in the snow just north of sand canyon a few times. That's a pretty busy place, I'm sure they are getting accustomed to us being there.
Post by: PA BEN on March 07, 2019, 09:41:02 AM
Post by: Bango skank on March 07, 2019, 10:09:50 AM
Friends are seeing them up the Addy Gifford rd., the Bluecreek rd. and just off 395 on Duncan rd. Their just not up north anymore. Seems like they made a big push south this winter.
As the sightings increase it will be just a matter of time until one meets an untimely demise with a vehicle. When the forensic unit shows up to do the investigation remember to speak calmly to the investigators!!
When they asked why didn't you swerve? Reply in a calm response. "I Did" leave it at that.
Female from profanity pack got run over on sherman pass a few years ago.
Post by: PA BEN on March 07, 2019, 02:29:58 PM
Post by: Bango skank on March 07, 2019, 02:33:23 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 07, 2019, 02:48:18 PM
Post by: Ghost Hunter on March 07, 2019, 04:37:48 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 07, 2019, 05:41:58 PM
Seeing any further north in the wedge?
I'm not sure what's going on with the wolves now, the Colville's were in there pretty hard working the wolves trapping and such so I'm not sure how many they've gotten or if the pushed the wolves somewhere else.
I kept out of their way.
Post by: PA BEN on March 07, 2019, 06:02:28 PM
Post by: PA BEN on March 08, 2019, 06:03:00 PM
Post by: dmoua on April 15, 2019, 09:34:14 PM
Post by: huntnnw on April 15, 2019, 09:38:58 PM
Post by: TheStovePipeKid on April 15, 2019, 09:42:06 PM
according to a UW study i read today wolves just push mule deer higher up and no effect on whitetails :rolleyes:
Oh good, I was worried the wolves were going to effect the ungulate population. Thanks for the peace of mind UW.
Post by: Ghost Hunter on April 18, 2019, 12:28:54 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on April 21, 2019, 01:18:47 PM
I glassed up a pack of 6 last week very close to Chewelah.
I videoed a collared mostly black wolf the day before turkey opener in the same general area. Not too afraid, that's for sure.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on April 22, 2019, 06:54:52 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on April 22, 2019, 08:36:12 PM
Post by: TommyH on April 22, 2019, 11:01:49 PM
Post by: dmoua on April 28, 2019, 11:01:30 PM
I videoed a collared mostly black wolf the day before turkey opener in the same general area. Not too afraid, that's for sure.
2 of the 6 were black. Couldn't tell if one of them was collared or not. They were pretty far out.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on April 29, 2019, 05:12:32 AM
Post by: Bango skank on May 01, 2019, 07:21:40 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2019, 09:29:25 AM
Wolves spotted on my road again. Neighbors think theres a den on my hill. Guess ill have to go check my cam up there when i get home.
Do you have small children, Bango? I hope not. I can't imagine raising a family with a den of wolves nearby and nothing to do about it. :bash:
Post by: Bango skank on May 01, 2019, 09:32:25 AM
Wolves spotted on my road again. Neighbors think theres a den on my hill. Guess ill have to go check my cam up there when i get home.
Do you have small children, Bango? I hope not. I can't imagine raising a family with a den of wolves nearby and nothing to do about it. :bash:
No, but this last sighting was within a couple hundred yards of my neighbors house. They do have small kids. And after night 2 of helicopters chasing them around my house not long ago, the pack was howling within a hundred yards of their house.
Part of an email from my neighbor:
(I’ve decided to begin calling them the Haller Creek Pack because that’s what they are; any pretense about this being a pack denned on Stranger Mountain that has just traveling its normal wide radius is obviously just that.) It boggles my mind that they’re literally yards from a backyard with young children and the Department is acting like we’re not entitled to know anything.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 01, 2019, 10:03:37 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 01, 2019, 10:20:24 AM
SMH
Post by: Bango skank on May 01, 2019, 10:22:42 AM
"It boggles my mind that they’re literally yards from a backyard with young children and the Department is acting like we’re not entitled to know anything."
SMH
When they were howling right outside the neighbors place in march, she called wdfw and was told she could let her dog out at night, the wolves are totally harmless and would never attack her dog
Post by: boneaddict on May 01, 2019, 10:23:58 AM
Post by: Bango skank on May 01, 2019, 10:30:02 AM