Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 08, 2011, 07:05:10 PM
Post by: saylean on June 08, 2011, 07:14:12 PM
(Probably wont make friends with that statement, but thats how I feel bout it). PS..I really want to hunt wolves, but legally.
Post by: Alan K on June 08, 2011, 07:18:31 PM
Post by: agchawk on June 08, 2011, 07:38:27 PM
Maybe dont poach?! :dunno:
(Probably wont make friends with that statement, but thats how I feel bout it). PS..I really want to hunt wolves, but legally.
Agreed. As much as do NOT want wolves in this state I'd have to agree with ya. You poach and you better be prepared to face the consequences.
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 07:39:47 PM
Post by: time2hunt on June 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Post by: bush_beater on June 08, 2011, 08:17:28 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 08, 2011, 08:19:16 PM
Federal charges filed in Wash. wolf poaching case
SPOKANE, Wash. —
A federal grand jury has indicted three Twisp-area residents following an investigation into the killing of endangered gray wolves in north-central Washington.
Tom White faces charges of unlawfully taking an endangered species in the 2008 killings of two wolves. His father, William D. White, later told a Canadian tanner that he had a "really big coyote" skin for processing, according to the indictment filed Tuesday in Spokane's U.S. District Court.
William White, a rancher, is charged with conspiring to unlawfully take an endangered species and making a false statement. Tom White's wife, Erin White, faces charges of false labeling of wildlife for export.
All three also face smuggling and unlawful export charges.
The White family did not return a telephone message from The Associated Press on Wednesday seeking comment. William White told The Spokesman-Review newspaper that his family had no comment.
The wolves were from the Methow Valley's Lookout Pack, the first documented wolf pack in Washington in several decades. Only two adult males are believed to remain in the pack after its alpha female disappeared last year.
William White allegedly contacted a relative in December 2007 for information about snaring wolves. A month later, email correspondence showed that he and others had begun hunting wolves near his residence, according to the indictment.
Tom White is accused of killing two wolves in 2008. Erin White is accused of using a false name to try to ship the package containing the wolf pelt to Alberta in December 2008.
A FedEx worker in Omak was suspicious of the bloody package and alerted Omak police, who began an investigation. A gray wolf and wolf parts were seized, the indictment said.
Wolves were removed from the Endangered Species list in the eastern one-third of Washington state this year, but they remain a federally protected species in the rest of the state. No public hunting of wolves is allowed in Washington.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has been working for five years to develop a statewide management plan for wolves that considers the species' contribution to and impact on the environment, livestock and hunters.
Post by: jeepasaurusrex on June 08, 2011, 08:34:42 PM
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 08, 2011, 08:47:56 PM
He did not follow the SSS rules.
EXACTLY! what an idiot, you cant just use part of it(shoot) an make up the rest! have to go by the books.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 08, 2011, 09:05:15 PM
The trial hasn't occured yet! An indictment in federal court came down which means now the individuals have been charged in federal court.big tex thanks for lining out the details ... just cought the end of it on the news tonight ....I swore I heard them say 3 .. one female and 2 off spring ...
Federal charges filed in Wash. wolf poaching case
SPOKANE, Wash. —
A federal grand jury has indicted three Twisp-area residents following an investigation into the killing of endangered gray wolves in north-central Washington.
Tom White faces charges of unlawfully taking an endangered species in the 2008 killings of two wolves. His father, William D. White, later told a Canadian tanner that he had a "really big coyote" skin for processing, according to the indictment filed Tuesday in Spokane's U.S. District Court.
William White, a rancher, is charged with conspiring to unlawfully take an endangered species and making a false statement. Tom White's wife, Erin White, faces charges of false labeling of wildlife for export.
All three also face smuggling and unlawful export charges.
The White family did not return a telephone message from The Associated Press on Wednesday seeking comment. William White told The Spokesman-Review newspaper that his family had no comment.
The wolves were from the Methow Valley's Lookout Pack, the first documented wolf pack in Washington in several decades. Only two adult males are believed to remain in the pack after its alpha female disappeared last year.
William White allegedly contacted a relative in December 2007 for information about snaring wolves. A month later, email correspondence showed that he and others had begun hunting wolves near his residence, according to the indictment.
Tom White is accused of killing two wolves in 2008. Erin White is accused of using a false name to try to ship the package containing the wolf pelt to Alberta in December 2008.
A FedEx worker in Omak was suspicious of the bloody package and alerted Omak police, who began an investigation. A gray wolf and wolf parts were seized, the indictment said.
Wolves were removed from the Endangered Species list in the eastern one-third of Washington state this year, but they remain a federally protected species in the rest of the state. No public hunting of wolves is allowed in Washington.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has been working for five years to develop a statewide management plan for wolves that considers the species' contribution to and impact on the environment, livestock and hunters.
Post by: True Sportsman on June 08, 2011, 09:06:06 PM
Post by: MP123 on June 08, 2011, 09:07:11 PM
He did not follow the SSS rules.
EXACTLY! what an idiot, you cant just use part of it(shoot) an make up the rest! have to go by the books.
Never forget the other 2 S-es :)
Post by: huntnnw on June 08, 2011, 09:23:10 PM
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 08, 2011, 09:33:02 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 08, 2011, 09:37:59 PM
Post by: robertg on June 08, 2011, 10:03:25 PM
Post by: predatorpro on June 08, 2011, 10:10:23 PM
Post by: sebek556 on June 08, 2011, 10:26:04 PM
Post by: MikeWalking on June 09, 2011, 06:14:46 AM
Post by: h20hunter on June 09, 2011, 06:20:00 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 09, 2011, 06:22:02 AM
Post by: danderson on June 09, 2011, 06:22:55 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 09, 2011, 06:33:28 AM
Post by: MikeWalking on June 09, 2011, 06:50:18 AM
Check your facts my friends, last time I checked an enditment was not a conviction, I thought this site promoted facts, come on who is patroling this thread.
What is an enditment? :chuckle: :chuckle: The OP fessed up to only catching the last few comments on TV... He missed the Indictment part..
Post by: jackmaster on June 09, 2011, 07:00:46 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 09, 2011, 07:10:38 AM
Post by: rasbo on June 09, 2011, 07:20:15 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2011, 07:21:38 AM
Maybe dont poach?! :dunno:
(Probably wont make friends with that statement, but thats how I feel bout it). PS..I really want to hunt wolves, but legally.
100% agreement. Fight the system, but stay legal.
Post by: shedcrazy on June 09, 2011, 07:37:56 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2011, 07:47:55 AM
He does have a strong defense. In 2008, there were no wolves in that county. The WDFW told us so. "Gee, officer, I thought I was just mailing a coyote to friends".
Post by: Elkrunner on June 09, 2011, 07:53:42 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on June 09, 2011, 08:01:06 AM
Post by: SkookumHntr on June 09, 2011, 08:16:30 AM
I say that we wait to see the court outcome before we jump ship on these guys. I don't condone any actions, but I do believe ionnocent until proven guilty. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 09, 2011, 08:26:06 AM
Really dumb.That's not true- I'm not sure how that argument keeps popping up. I'm not sure what his defense is going to be. It sounds like they pretty well have him nailed.
He does have a strong defense. In 2008, there were no wolves in that county. The WDFW told us so. "Gee, officer, I thought I was just mailing a coyote to friends".
Post by: h20hunter on June 09, 2011, 08:30:24 AM
http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/08/Twisp+Family+Shot+5+Wolves%2C+Tried+To+Poison+More%2C+Feds+Say/ (http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/08/Twisp+Family+Shot+5+Wolves%2C+Tried+To+Poison+More%2C+Feds+Say/)
Post by: Elkrunner on June 09, 2011, 09:17:31 AM
Post by: hoytem on June 09, 2011, 10:05:03 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 09, 2011, 10:42:41 AM
Really dumb.That's not true- I'm not sure how that argument keeps popping up. I'm not sure what his defense is going to be. It sounds like they pretty well have him nailed.
He does have a strong defense. In 2008, there were no wolves in that county. The WDFW told us so. "Gee, officer, I thought I was just mailing a coyote to friends".
I was not being serious. This guy obviously is an idiot for doing what he did.
Post by: turnloose on June 09, 2011, 11:08:44 AM
Post by: jackmaster on June 09, 2011, 11:12:33 AM
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2011, 11:27:32 AM
i do have a question, a serious one, :chuckle: If the state claims that they havent re-introduced wolves to washington state, doesnt that make them a non indigenous animal and can be shot year around, i know of a place that has a few wild fallow deer runnin around and we can shoot them anytime of the year, i know its still illegal to kill wolves in this state but doesnt that rule open alot for interpretation for a defense
There are actual definitions of invasive/deleterious wildlife in this state. For example Antelope is not one of those species and is actually considered big game.
Post by: Houndhunter on June 09, 2011, 11:30:59 AM
Post by: jackmaster on June 09, 2011, 11:58:33 AM
while i think mailing the wolf to Canada was a dumb thing to do i feel bad for the guy. it says he was a rancher, so i wonder how many cattle he has and if he lost any from wolves. i know what the feds, yes feds not state, can and will do. that guy has lost all his rights since getting caught, and for what shooting wolf. really irritates me that killing a lousy critter that shouldn't be here in the first place can give the government the right to do whatever they want to you and your family.... it isn't righti have to agree houndhunter, i didnt hear that part so if your heard of cattle is being attacked then it is still illegal to kill them, that is B.S, what the hell, you can kill a man for luting during certain times but you cant kill a damn wolf for hurtn your lively hoo, does this seem odd to anyone else?
Post by: Houndhunter on June 09, 2011, 12:07:17 PM
Post by: jackmaster on June 09, 2011, 12:12:33 PM
Post by: KillerMiller on June 09, 2011, 12:23:08 PM
Methow Valley News
Goes to show you if your willing to break the law for something you do not agree with (i.e. wolves) you might just poach a few more species we do CARE about or take part in the cover up.
Post by: jackmaster on June 09, 2011, 01:56:38 PM
Post by: Okano-gun on June 09, 2011, 03:34:46 PM
Post by: h20hunter on June 09, 2011, 03:38:58 PM
Post by: AlpineMuley on June 09, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Post by: h20hunter on June 10, 2011, 08:04:17 AM
http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/09/%E2%80%98A+Pattern+Of+Behavior%E2%80%99+In+White+Wolf+Case/ (http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/09/%E2%80%98A+Pattern+Of+Behavior%E2%80%99+In+White+Wolf+Case/)
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 10, 2011, 08:40:46 AM
Here is a link to the same publication. They posted some follow up. Looks like he has a record of poaching. Moose and deer in Canada, deer here in WA, running dogs for bear....with previous offenses and new allegations I would say this person is not doing sportsman any favors. Sad to see.Hey I urge everyone to go to the link that h20 has provided and leave a comment on what your thoughts might be about the wolve issue ..... it may make a big difference in the long run !! thanks john
http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/09/%E2%80%98A+Pattern+Of+Behavior%E2%80%99+In+White+Wolf+Case/ (http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/06/09/%E2%80%98A+Pattern+Of+Behavior%E2%80%99+In+White+Wolf+Case/)
Post by: h20hunter on June 10, 2011, 08:51:35 AM
Does that make sense or am I way off base?
Post by: rasbo on June 10, 2011, 08:56:40 AM
Kind of a thought here and it may have been mentioned in other threads. I think one of the worst things that can happen if you are on either side, pro/anti, of the wolf debate is poaching. It does no good for the sportsman since it shows complete disgregard for game laws and restrictions. I would guess that for every poached wolf the state could have made a case for X number of tags available for the general public. What else is bad is that for every wolf poached you give the antis a ton more of media coverage showing that sporstman are the bad guys.yes it does,might also have some figure we need more wolves to account for such acts,SSS comments I believe hurt as much,and should be scrubed from the site.
Does that make sense or am I way off base?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2011, 08:57:21 AM
+1Kind of a thought here and it may have been mentioned in other threads. I think one of the worst things that can happen if you are on either side, pro/anti, of the wolf debate is poaching. It does no good for the sportsman since it shows complete disgregard for game laws and restrictions. I would guess that for every poached wolf the state could have made a case for X number of tags available for the general public. What else is bad is that for every wolf poached you give the antis a ton more of media coverage showing that sporstman are the bad guys.yes it does,might also have some figure we need more wolves to account for such acts,SSS comments I believe hurt as much,and should be scrubed from the site.
Does that make sense or am I way off base?
Post by: Skillet on June 10, 2011, 09:00:14 AM
In a few posts here, it is even alluded to that he shot the wolves in defense of his cattle. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't even say he did that himself... let's not go ascribing some noble defense to his poaching that even he wouldn't claim.
Post by: Machias on June 10, 2011, 09:03:35 AM
The article is pretty revealing, 23 packs will be needed to achieve the 15 breeding pairs and if they den a foot inside BC or ID then they do not count towards the count. It's amazing that they could not delist them based on an imaginay boundry line such as WY's border, but in the case of counting a breeding pair the line is just fine. Also the part about they looked at the minority's (hunters and ranchers) view and disregarded them.
Post by: Skillet on June 10, 2011, 09:21:29 AM
OJ didn't do it, either.
Get real, this guy and his pardners are dirtbag scofflaws. The fact we have so many on here outwardly defending him through supposition and speculation is no better than guys like me who think his self-serving, boneheaded actions are taking us all back a notch in the good fight of trying to manage a pretty serious predator in Washington.
Why do you think he was shipping the pelt to Canada? They can be sold up there... if he was just defending his herd, he would have done what he has every right to do - shoot the sumbitch and call the gamies to come pick him up.
Post by: h20hunter on June 10, 2011, 09:27:16 AM
Post by: Machias on June 10, 2011, 09:28:15 AM
these obviously-guilty criminals
I guess you've never watched crime shows or read in the paper about obviusly guilty people being found innocent or folks that have sat in jail for years being released after these obviously guilty criminals were found to be innocent. I'm not sticking up for his actions. If he is found guilty he should and will be made to pay. But just because the PAPER says it's so or the Government says it's so does not make it so. Are you so impatient you can't give them due process? Hopefully Skillet you'll never have the occasion to be falsely accused of a crime.
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on June 10, 2011, 09:33:23 AM
How about we let the legal system work before we call them serial poachers. They have not been convicted of anything.
I'm all for the legal system. But you would have to admit that this guys in a tough spot. You don't get 'cases pending' against you, unless there's reasonable cause. Most honest hunters that make a mistake, pay the fine and move on. There are the few that make a mistake yet still fight the charges, but you Don't see them in court with 'multiple pending cases'. The guilty usually fight, and often have more than one battle to defend themselves for. -Even if he and his accomplices/associates/family members made a mistake by not declaring an imported deer, even being brought up on charges for other crimes and assume he is still innocent is tough for me to swallow. The legal system is good and will usually catch the habitual offender. I don't know if serial is the right word, but he's setting a trend over the years. I wonder what he's done and not been caught at yet.
I'll keep an open mind, but I'm bettin they'll convict him/them of something. This does nothing good for the hunter's image to the bunny huggers.
Don't get me wrong... I love the fact that someone is assisting with Wolf population control! 8)
-Steve
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 10, 2011, 09:36:28 AM
Post by: Machias on June 10, 2011, 09:44:12 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 10, 2011, 09:44:58 AM
yeah like me last year when I got my cougar .. it was not hi john nice cat it was o.k tell us now where you killed it and we know you used hounds and on and on ...never poached *censored* in my life and they were convinced I used hounds .. so this goes to show you their are a few whack job wardens out their ...and no they could not prove *censored* but just the rumors pissed me off !!!!!these obviously-guilty criminals
I guess you've never watched crime shows or read in the paper about obviusly guilty people being found innocent or folks that have sat in jail for years being released after these obviously guilty criminals were found to be innocent. I'm not sticking up for his actions. If he is found guilty he should and will be made to pay. But just because the PAPER says it's so or the Government says it's so does not make it so. Are you so impatient you can't give them due process? Hopefully Skillet you'll never have the occasion to be falsely accused of a crime.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2011, 09:48:28 AM
I'm not saying they are not in a tight spot or that they will eventually be convicted. I'm just saying can't we at least wait until they are convicted to hang them. Some guys on this site sit up on a pretty high horse, but then condone other illegal game violations or welcome known poachers on this site and treat them with respect and kindness. Some folks really should step down off their high horses.
I agree. This man hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law. As far as others on this site are concerned, either you condone illegal activity or you don't. If he's guilty, I hope they throw the book at him. If the charges are true, people like this are those who make all of us hunters look bad in the public light.
Post by: Machias on June 10, 2011, 09:56:18 AM
I'm not saying they are not in a tight spot or that they will eventually be convicted. I'm just saying can't we at least wait until they are convicted to hang them. Some guys on this site sit up on a pretty high horse, but then condone other illegal game violations or welcome known poachers on this site and treat them with respect and kindness. Some folks really should step down off their high horses.
I agree. This man hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law. As far as others on this site are concerned, either you condone illegal activity or you don't. If he's guilty, I hope they throw the book at him. If the charges are true, people like this are those who make all of us hunters look bad in the public light.
:tup:
Post by: jackmaster on June 10, 2011, 12:30:42 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 10, 2011, 12:42:24 PM
i admit i was one who would have defended this clown for protecting his cattle but as the thread went on more info came out and i changed my tune, it turns out this guy is everything we as ethical hunters and we try to do it the right way, stand against, this dipstick, *censored* makes all hunters look bad, i hope IF he is found guilty that they throw his butt in prison and throw away the key, i dont condone anything this *censored* stands for :twocents:
What he did does not make lawful hunters look bad any more than a person who murders with a gun makes all gun owners look bad.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2011, 12:47:55 PM
i admit i was one who would have defended this clown for protecting his cattle but as the thread went on more info came out and i changed my tune, it turns out this guy is everything we as ethical hunters and we try to do it the right way, stand against, this dipstick, *censored* makes all hunters look bad, i hope IF he is found guilty that they throw his butt in prison and throw away the key, i dont condone anything this *censored* stands for :twocents:+1...imagine my dismay when there was a group (on huntWA) that was trying to get a defense fund set up... :bash: :bash: :bash: :bdid:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2011, 12:50:59 PM
i admit i was one who would have defended this clown for protecting his cattle but as the thread went on more info came out and i changed my tune, it turns out this guy is everything we as ethical hunters and we try to do it the right way, stand against, this dipstick, *censored* makes all hunters look bad, i hope IF he is found guilty that they throw his butt in prison and throw away the key, i dont condone anything this *censored* stands for :twocents:
What he did does not make lawful hunters look bad any more than a person who murders with a gun makes all gun owners look bad.
Maybe not to you and other hunters, but to the non-hunter (who represents 93% of the voting public), who's not familiar with good hunters and their ethics, this makes all of us look like unethical, criminal killers. Incidents like this will make those non-hunters more susceptible to the misinformation and anti-hunting rhetoric of the wackos who would take away our hunting and guns. Don't stand for it, don't condone it, and be vocal about speaking out against it. And that's my :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on June 10, 2011, 12:53:51 PM
Kind of a thought here and it may have been mentioned in other threads. I think one of the worst things that can happen if you are on either side, pro/anti, of the wolf debate is poaching. It does no good for the sportsman since it shows complete disgregard for game laws and restrictions. I would guess that for every poached wolf the state could have made a case for X number of tags available for the general public. What else is bad is that for every wolf poached you give the antis a ton more of media coverage showing that sporstman are the bad guys.If it gets to the point where they are selling tags for wolves here in Wa, then what the heck do you think the deer and elk populations are gonna be at? We need to make sure the population doesn't get high enough for tags, once again I'll say- look at Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and ask yourself do you want to be in the same boat as them????? What the hell is it gonna take to convice some of you guys that wolves are not good for our state??? If you want to hunt them, go across the boarder up north are go cheap and head to Idaho. I don't see any room for the killing machines. And call me what you want, I believe in SSS all the way but you'll never see me poach any other game animal.
Does that make sense or am I way off base?
Post by: wsucowboy on June 10, 2011, 01:03:13 PM
He did not follow the SSS rules.:yeah:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 10, 2011, 01:06:54 PM
i admit i was one who would have defended this clown for protecting his cattle but as the thread went on more info came out and i changed my tune, it turns out this guy is everything we as ethical hunters and we try to do it the right way, stand against, this dipstick, *censored* makes all hunters look bad, i hope IF he is found guilty that they throw his butt in prison and throw away the key, i dont condone anything this *censored* stands for :twocents:
What he did does not make lawful hunters look bad any more than a person who murders with a gun makes all gun owners look bad.
Maybe not to you and other hunters, but to the non-hunter (who represents 93% of the voting public), who's not familiar with good hunters and their ethics, this makes all of us look like unethical, criminal killers. Incidents like this will make those non-hunters more susceptible to the misinformation and anti-hunting rhetoric of the wackos who would take away our hunting and guns. Don't stand for it, don't condone it, and be vocal about speaking out against it. And that's my :twocents:
I don't disagree with you. But their perceptions are preconceived. That they feel that way does not make it so. It is important that we never let them make poachers out to be hunters. For the same reason Gun Owners are not murderers.
What some people are saying, (and I am in this camp) is that we are Hunters. We embrace our rights and the Constitution of this Country. We don't stop defending it after the 1st Amendment is read. (We don't deface that Amendment either.) We are saying like the 2nd we should allow this guy the 5th. He will get that. If we are willing to throw each other under the bus to appease our enemies for fear of what they will think, reset assured they already hate you and want to see you stripped of everything they oppose. I'd not stand with them but at the same time saying that any criminal is afforded due process before conviction is not advocating for lawlessness.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 10, 2011, 01:52:14 PM
ya I kinda stand with you on this ... let the law decide on it ... we all joke about killing the wolves but this guy actually ( MAY) have done it ... I would not want to be in his shoes ...i admit i was one who would have defended this clown for protecting his cattle but as the thread went on more info came out and i changed my tune, it turns out this guy is everything we as ethical hunters and we try to do it the right way, stand against, this dipstick, *censored* makes all hunters look bad, i hope IF he is found guilty that they throw his butt in prison and throw away the key, i dont condone anything this *censored* stands for :twocents:
What he did does not make lawful hunters look bad any more than a person who murders with a gun makes all gun owners look bad.
Maybe not to you and other hunters, but to the non-hunter (who represents 93% of the voting public), who's not familiar with good hunters and their ethics, this makes all of us look like unethical, criminal killers. Incidents like this will make those non-hunters more susceptible to the misinformation and anti-hunting rhetoric of the wackos who would take away our hunting and guns. Don't stand for it, don't condone it, and be vocal about speaking out against it. And that's my :twocents:
I don't disagree with you. But their perceptions are preconceived. That they feel that way does not make it so. It is important that we never let them make poachers out to be hunters. For the same reason Gun Owners are not murderers.
What some people are saying, (and I am in this camp) is that we are Hunters. We embrace our rights and the Constitution of this Country. We don't stop defending it after the 1st Amendment is read. (We don't deface that Amendment either.) We are saying like the 2nd we should allow this guy the 5th. He will get that. If we are willing to throw each other under the bus to appease our enemies for fear of what they will think, reset assured they already hate you and want to see you stripped of everything they oppose. I'd not stand with them but at the same time saying that any criminal is afforded due process before conviction is not advocating for lawlessness.
Post by: Lowedog on June 10, 2011, 02:57:18 PM
The article in NWSPM revealed a lot of info I had yet to read about the case.
Post by: Machias on June 10, 2011, 03:01:50 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 10, 2011, 03:05:15 PM
For every wolf poached it also prolongs delisting.I'm sorry for repeating myself but, if we have to wait to kill wolves just because they delist them- then it will be too late for the deer and the elk. A dead wolf that no one knows about is a good thing, I would love it if they never get delisted in Wa. Which would mean they never reach the numbers that it would take to delist them!!
The article in NWSPM revealed a lot of info I had yet to read about the case.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 10, 2011, 03:13:33 PM
For every wolf poached it also prolongs delisting.I'm sorry for repeating myself but, if we have to wait to kill wolves just because they delist them- then it will be too late for the deer and the elk. A dead wolf that no one knows about is a good thing, I would love it if they never get delisted in Wa. Which would mean they never reach the numbers that it would take to delist them!!
The article in NWSPM revealed a lot of info I had yet to read about the case.
Why are these comments being posted in a forum that's open to public viewing? You guys are going to bring heat down on all of the hunters of this state because you can't keep your comments about illegal activities and poaching to yourself. This is really stupid.
Post by: jackelope on June 10, 2011, 03:37:59 PM
They you're ok with poaching?For every wolf poached it also prolongs delisting.I'm sorry for repeating myself but, if we have to wait to kill wolves just because they delist them- then it will be too late for the deer and the elk. A dead wolf that no one knows about is a good thing, I would love it if they never get delisted in Wa. Which would mean they never reach the numbers that it would take to delist them!!
The article in NWSPM revealed a lot of info I had yet to read about the case.
Is that what you're saying? Because that's what you're implying.
Post by: h20hunter on June 10, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
Post by: Machias on June 10, 2011, 03:50:35 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 10, 2011, 04:06:29 PM
At least when we are all no longer able to deer, elk or moose hunt we'll be satisfied in the fact we stuck to the high road.
Sorry and call me crazy if you want but I will never put myself or my family in jeopardy when it comes to killing wolves. I am truly surprised that some of you guys would risk prison time and the damage it could do to your family over killing a wolf. You can't do much good for your wife and kids when you're sitting in a prison cell.
Not sure if it's that or the internet tough guy thing.
Post by: agchawk on June 10, 2011, 04:12:47 PM
At least when we are all no longer able to deer, elk or moose hunt we'll be satisfied in the fact we stuck to the high road.
Sorry and call me crazy if you want but I will never put myself or my family in jeopardy when it comes to killing wolves. I am truly surprised that some of you guys would risk prison time and the damage it could do to your family over killing a wolf. You can't do much good for your wife and kids when you're sitting in a prison cell.
Not sure if it's that or the internet tough guy thing.
Agree 100%. There is absolutely no way I'd illegally take a wolf. 1) Poaching is poaching in my opinion, no matter the species or your personal thoughts on same 2) Spending a good amount of time in prison, financial penalties, and a felony conviction on my record (And subsiquent loss of employment) all sounds like things I'd rather not experience.
In my opinion you either condone poaching or you do not. And, posting the fact that you think it's OK on a public forum isn't very wise either.
Post by: Ridgeratt on June 10, 2011, 04:14:12 PM
At least when we are all no longer able to deer, elk or moose hunt we'll be satisfied in the fact we stuck to the high road.
This is a interesting quote considering your backround!!
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 10, 2011, 04:21:28 PM
For every wolf poached it also prolongs delisting.I'm sorry for repeating myself but, if we have to wait to kill wolves just because they delist them- then it will be too late for the deer and the elk. A dead wolf that no one knows about is a good thing, I would love it if they never get delisted in Wa. Which would mean they never reach the numbers that it would take to delist them!!
The article in NWSPM revealed a lot of info I had yet to read about the case.
Why are these comments being posted in a forum that's open to public viewing? You guys are going to bring heat down on all of the hunters of this state because you can't keep your comments about illegal activities and poaching to yourself. This is really stupid.
Because it is an honest opinion. And to the post that said, "I would not want to be in his shoes." +1 to that. Me either.
I agree that illegal action should be kept to an individual. Don't forget LE does monitor the site. But to answer the question of trying to just be a vigilante and think that the wolves will be kept suppressed think about this guy, he is giving up his freedom, his father's freedom, his wife's freedom, by this I mean potentially tens of thousands of dollars and real jail time. 9 felonies. With his wife on video trying to mail a pelt from the US to Canada it might be hard to refute that kind of evidence. So real jail time is likely. And what did it accomplish? Maybe, it broke up one pack. For those few how many more are there now? We are not going to take away the very real possibility of jail time through vigilantism. It also gives more credibility to needing more LE enforcement. It gives cannon fodder to the pro wolf organizations to continue to raise more funds. I don't advocate vigilantism at this junction. I advocate getting as many people to write, phone, type and join our cause as possible. Wolves are in Washington to stay. It is that simple. How they are managed or if they are managed is still up for debate.
Post by: KillBilly on June 10, 2011, 04:21:58 PM
At least when we are all no longer able to deer, elk or moose hunt we'll be satisfied in the fact we stuck to the high road.
Sorry and call me crazy if you want but I will never put myself or my family in jeopardy when it comes to killing wolves. I am truly surprised that some of you guys would risk prison time and the damage it could do to your family over killing a wolf. You can't do much good for your wife and kids when you're sitting in a prison cell.
Not sure if it's that or the internet tough guy thing.
I don't think it is the internet tough guy thing.... it seems to be coming from a knowleagable and accomplished p(*&^*^r. oops that is supposed to say Preacher :dunno:
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 10, 2011, 04:31:38 PM
Well hear we are .. not thinking he would ever be in trouble killin wolves , thats not the case but if this rancher was smart enough I do not think he would of known better and try mailing it to another state ... :dunno: :dunno: Seriously what do you think a mail carrier is going to do when they notice blood coming from a box ... these wolves moved down from Canada and he figured it was is duty to eliminate a couple ... :tup:I don't know of to many hides that bleed or have blood on them. Doesn't sound right to me. Shipping the hide was deffinetly not the best they could have done. All this bashing is driving me nuts. Every one on here talks about how they hate wolves and don't want to see them in our hunting areas. Well not everyone knows why the wolves were killed. Did any of you think about the cattle. I think if they were killing my cattle I would take matters into my own hands. Did any of you think that the family contacted the wdfw about the wolves? I would say they did. The response was that there are no wolves in this area. It is all a one side deal here. Lets bash the poacher. We should all stick together. Don't you think that they are going through enough will all the court stuff. We all make mistakes and we all have stuff we have done that we are not proud of. Give the White's some support. We as hunters should stick together. This is the internet and people have there own opinions. I understand this. I met the whites this past winter and they are some of the nicest people I have ever met! So go ahead keep bashing them. If that makes you feel better. I am not afraid to say that I support them and I hope they beat this thing!!!
Post by: jackelope on June 10, 2011, 04:34:35 PM
Well hear we are .. not thinking he would ever be in trouble killin wolves , thats not the case but if this rancher was smart enough I do not think he would of known better and try mailing it to another state ... :dunno: :dunno: Seriously what do you think a mail carrier is going to do when they notice blood coming from a box ... these wolves moved down from Canada and he figured it was is duty to eliminate a couple ... :tup:
Who didn't think he would ever be in trouble for killing wolves?
"We" is not accurate.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 10, 2011, 04:53:44 PM
obvisously he did or he would not of killed them !!! nor would he mail them off ... so how should of I worded it ..and their was blood coming from a box because at one point it would not of held up in court because they opened the box without a search warrant but I guess they got around that ....everything is a figure of speech seems like you can not make everyone happy on any given issue !!! way to many opinions on all this stuff !!Well hear we are .. not thinking he would ever be in trouble killin wolves , thats not the case but if this rancher was smart enough I do not think he would of known better and try mailing it to another state ... :dunno: :dunno: Seriously what do you think a mail carrier is going to do when they notice blood coming from a box ... these wolves moved down from Canada and he figured it was is duty to eliminate a couple ... :tup:
Who didn't think he would ever be in trouble for killing wolves?
"We" is not accurate.
Post by: jackelope on June 10, 2011, 04:58:48 PM
Quote
Well hear we are .. not thinking he would ever be in trouble killin wolves
Post by: Machias on June 10, 2011, 05:12:49 PM
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 10, 2011, 05:25:49 PM
the search warrant should be the luepold to get him out of this messobvisously he did or he would not of killed them !!! nor would he mail them off ... so how should of I worded it ..and their was blood coming from a box because at one point it would not of held up in court because they opened the box without a search warrant but I guess they got around that ....everything is a figure of speech seems like you can not make everyone happy on any given issue !!! way to many opinions on all this stuff !!Well hear we are .. not thinking he would ever be in trouble killin wolves , thats not the case but if this rancher was smart enough I do not think he would of known better and try mailing it to another state ... :dunno: :dunno: Seriously what do you think a mail carrier is going to do when they notice blood coming from a box ... these wolves moved down from Canada and he figured it was is duty to eliminate a couple ... :tup:
Who didn't think he would ever be in trouble for killing wolves?
"We" is not accurate.
Post by: Skillet on June 10, 2011, 05:42:24 PM
the search warrant should be the luepold to get him out of this mess
I'm still amazed at how many people will rally around the wrong thing for the right reasons...
A technicality like that does not determine if he did or did not commit a felony, it just inhibits the ability of the prosecution to introduce that piece of evidence to support proving the felony occurred.
If it comes down to him getting off on a technicality, then the argument about whether he's a dirtbag poacher is moot, isn't it? We're pretty much talking about him either being a dirtbag poacher with a conviction or one without.
Post by: h20hunter on June 10, 2011, 05:45:25 PM
I agree that management needs to be done very carefully. The fact is that wolves are here. Yep, they are gonna eat deer, elk, and whatever else. Are they going to eat "all the deer". Of course not.
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 10, 2011, 06:33:13 PM
Like I said earlier you have your opinion I have mine. This man would give you the shirt of his back. You can't say that about about to many people. You calling somone a dirt bag that you don't even know makes it ok I guess? Everyone is so quick to judge people they don't even know. One thing I said earlier is You don't know the whole truth. So lets persicute him. Thats crap. All I know is that they are good folks and they have enough to deal with. Without people calling them scum bags. I don't care who knows that I support them. Yes if the court finds them guilty they will take there punishment and deal with it. If they get off on a technicality that's fine by me.the search warrant should be the luepold to get him out of this mess
I'm still amazed at how many people will rally around the wrong thing for the right reasons...
A technicality like that does not determine if he did or did not commit a felony, it just inhibits the ability of the prosecution to introduce that piece of evidence to support proving the felony occurred.
If it comes down to him getting off on a technicality, then the argument about whether he's a dirtbag poacher is moot, isn't it? We're pretty much talking about him either being a dirtbag poacher with a conviction or one without.
Post by: h20hunter on June 10, 2011, 06:53:31 PM
I understand your point of view. You feel for these folks becuase you know them apprently by the good deeds they have done. Got it. The same way a parents looks after a child, for better or worse. That is an admirable trait to stand by people in good and bad times. However.....if the allegations of mulitiple poaching are proven true than I don't understand your arguement that "we hunters" stick together.
I would say a good debate and good thing to argue about is neck shots vs. lung...mechanical vs. fixed, bourbon vs scotch. Not whether or not we should stick by other hunters when they have apprently and allegedly shown complete disregard for just about any and all game laws.
Again, I understand your desire to defend and stick with the Whites. Like I said, admirable. However, that still doesn't justify the apperant disregard for game laws.
Post by: True Sportsman on June 10, 2011, 09:54:08 PM
Like I said earlier you have your opinion I have mine. This man would give you the shirt of his back. You can't say that about about to many people. You calling somone a dirt bag that you don't even know makes it ok I guess? Everyone is so quick to judge people they don't even know. One thing I said earlier is You don't know the whole truth. So lets persicute him. Thats crap. All I know is that they are good folks and they have enough to deal with. Without people calling them scum bags. I don't care who knows that I support them. Yes if the court finds them guilty they will take there punishment and deal with it. If they get off on a technicality that's fine by me.the search warrant should be the luepold to get him out of this mess
I'm still amazed at how many people will rally around the wrong thing for the right reasons...
A technicality like that does not determine if he did or did not commit a felony, it just inhibits the ability of the prosecution to introduce that piece of evidence to support proving the felony occurred.
If it comes down to him getting off on a technicality, then the argument about whether he's a dirtbag poacher is moot, isn't it? We're pretty much talking about him either being a dirtbag poacher with a conviction or one without.
If he is such a good guy, why would he break the law by "allegedly" killing a wolf? Why would he try and ship the pelt to Canada? And why wouldn't he ship it in a cooler with some dry ice?!!!
Seems like he really blew it. Literally.
Post by: danderson on June 10, 2011, 10:50:59 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 10, 2011, 11:17:14 PM
I always adhered to the law during 20 years as an LE patrolman and detective. Hunting is not just a pasttime for me it is my very soul. I read Mr. Beers assessment the other day and should have simmered down before I posted. I posted purely out of bitter frustration and a sense of hopelessness. Looking east at how the past 15 years have gone and looking at how our state does stuff and the WDFW operates I am not nearly as optimistic as some of you. Looking at the past few years and seeing how the the very same folks are in charge here I can't for the life of me see where you guys think this will work it's self out somewhere down the road. The sarcastic quote above is not internet tough guy it was a sarcastic remark that I truly believe will come to pass for the very reason you said, 99.9% of us will not risk our families over a wolf. I get it. That sarcastic remark is directed at me as well as the rest of us. We WILL be sitting around wishing for the old days, we won't have a heritage to pass along to our kids, because we will stick to the high road..:yeah:Amen, what will it take for some of these.... to understand the damage that wolves will do to our wildlife????? I don't think the wdfw will be staking out my house for saying what I feel on this site. 90% of us are the same on this site. We love hunting period, some of us just have blinders on and haven't traveled out of state much to hunt in areas that have been decimated by the wolves, wiped the f out. It won't take long, can't you friggin understand that! I don't agree that SSS will bring more pressure down on us, not for a minute. I think real hunters understand the damage that is in our future thanks to pussies that keep the blinders on. Oops now I've lost some friends and support I used to get but this just infuriates me even more than the tribal hunting. Sorry
Post by: rtspring on June 11, 2011, 04:52:24 AM
If a wolf or anything else for that matter is coming on my property and trying to cause harm to anything that lives on my land, humans, livestock, and such... bet your ass thats a dead wolf. Wouldn't even think twice about it........
Post by: Skillet on June 11, 2011, 06:24:49 AM
:yeah:Amen, what will it take for some of these.... to understand the damage that wolves will do to our wildlife?????
I understand wolves don't eat kibble. I understand they eat a lot of non-kibble, in fact, and their presence will affect the amount of available game to hunters. I understand for this to be successful, wolves will need to be managed like any other predator. We're the most apex predator out there, and look at how much management we have to deal with. The rider passed on the budget bill de-listing wolves provided an unprecedented opportunity for that management to happen, and the discussion in Olympia has changed from one of "wolves are coming back, and that's that", to "we better get a plan in place." It's a bad plan now, in my opinion, but plans can be changed.
I also understand that the people who killed these wolves (WHOEVER THEY ARE), are poachers of a then-federally protected species, plain and simple. If they were actaully defending their stock or pets, they could have easily just shot the mongrels and called the WDFW to deal with it. Sure, they may have gotten the rubber glove treatment at that point, but an honest man has nothing to hide - so he would have soon been along his merry, wolf-free way.
What I don't understand is the duplicity of the mentality of many on this site. If it was a monster peaches ridge bull killed out of season by a tribal member, a large number of guys here would be arguing for a lynching. In this case, a large number of the same guys would be helping poachers mount a defense because they poached wolves instead.
I've known a poacher. Worked with him in fact - we always thought he was joking about going hunting with his chinese buddy "Poe-Chinh". Nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. But when it came out that he really wasn't kidding and got rang up by the WDFW, he was just a dirtbag poacher to me and the rest of the guys. I don't know if he was convicted or not, he quit right after he was charged.
In any case - it doesn't take a jury's opinion to tell me that when somebody admits to poaching game, they're a poacher. Again, OJ's free, but he ain't innocent.
Post by: Skillet on June 11, 2011, 06:26:56 AM
I don't know the whole story but,
If a wolf or anything else for that matter is coming on my property and trying to cause harm to anything that lives on my land, humans, livestock, and such... bet your ass thats a dead wolf. Wouldn't even think twice about it........
And if you'd report it as just that scenario and not try to ship a pelt to Canada, you'd be a folk hero with nothing to hide. But that ain't what went down here.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 11, 2011, 07:29:55 AM
For every wolf poached it also prolongs delisting.I'm sorry for repeating myself but, if we have to wait to kill wolves just because they delist them- then it will be too late for the deer and the elk. A dead wolf that no one knows about is a good thing, I would love it if they never get delisted in Wa. Which would mean they never reach the numbers that it would take to delist them!!
The article in NWSPM revealed a lot of info I had yet to read about the case.
Why are these comments being posted in a forum that's open to public viewing? You guys are going to bring heat down on all of the hunters of this state because you can't keep your comments about illegal activities and poaching to yourself. This is really stupid.
Because it is an honest opinion. And to the post that said, "I would not want to be in his shoes." +1 to that. Me either.
I agree that illegal action should be kept to an individual. Don't forget LE does monitor the site. But to answer the question of trying to just be a vigilante and think that the wolves will be kept suppressed think about this guy, he is giving up his freedom, his father's freedom, his wife's freedom, by this I mean potentially tens of thousands of dollars and real jail time. 9 felonies. With his wife on video trying to mail a pelt from the US to Canada it might be hard to refute that kind of evidence. So real jail time is likely. And what did it accomplish? Maybe, it broke up one pack. For those few how many more are there now? We are not going to take away the very real possibility of jail time through vigilantism. It also gives more credibility to needing more LE enforcement. It gives cannon fodder to the pro wolf organizations to continue to raise more funds. I don't advocate vigilantism at this junction. I advocate getting as many people to write, phone, type and join our cause as possible. Wolves are in Washington to stay. It is that simple. How they are managed or if they are managed is still up for debate.
Very well stated.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 11, 2011, 08:54:59 AM
Post by: Jack Diamond on June 11, 2011, 09:12:33 AM
Post by: Skillet on June 11, 2011, 10:03:35 AM
There is a world of difference between a trophy bull elk hell even a spike elk and a wolf. The wolf isn't just a predator like the cougar, bear or even a coyote but the difference is the wolf is on steroids compared to those other guys. If you guys want the population of wolves to be high enough to manage, then we've already lost. Why doesn't that make sense to you?
Because it's not true. A pound of wolf takes roughly the same energy to sustain as a pound of cougar. How many pounds of cougar do we have in this state? I still get to buy tags every year... And by some accounts I've read here, the wolves won't be eating deer and elk nearly as often as they'll be eating cattle, dogs, women and children... :chuckle:
I don't think what they did was smart at all but It also doesn't bother me that some wolves died. I think some here are on the line of supporting the damn things and don't even realize it. SSS
That's what I'm saying, too - the guys that pulled this stunt are idiots. Wolves aren't the only thing they *allegedly* killed illegally, either, which seems to keep getting swept under the rug. They're just common criminals, but one of their targets was one that has become the poster child for everything that's wrong with Washington big game hunting here, especially since Dale bought the site.
I've never denied being OK with a few wolves in Washington (I guarantee I'm not the only one with that opinion reading this site, either, even though a lot of folks won't say it do to the wolf fever that's running a little hot here). Hell, we can't even keep people out that aren't supposed to be here - no way we can keep wolves out. They're coming, good bad or ugly - it's my opinion we might as well get on the inevitable side of things and work towards supporting a severely restricted population with hunting to control the surplus. As I've said before, the plan is a bad one now, but plans can be changed. It just takes effort, and credit to Dale for making lot of headway in garnering support for limiting the number of wolves in Washington (perhaps purchasing this site was part of the strategy - if so, it was a good decision). Idaho and MT never had the chance, due to the federal protection wolves enjoyed during that population boom. To compare Idaho and Montana's current reality to our future is a red herring. We will have that chance, and we would all be fools to ignore that opportunity and become complacent about vigilante methods in place of management. I will be one of the first in line to apply for my wolf tag when that time comes. That way, I'll get to display the pelt honorably instead of shipping it up to Canada like a petty thief trying to fence a TV.
:twocents: Flame away...
Post by: trophyhunt on June 11, 2011, 10:20:06 AM
Post by: Skillet on June 11, 2011, 10:32:38 AM
I'm just advocating we go about minimizing the threat legally and not try and protect those that don't do it legally. They are outside the law and should not be welcomed into the hunting community, as I understand it to exist.
This de-listing that rode on the budget bill through congress is the best thing that could have happened to us - we get to have a say in determining our own fate, as opposed to ID and MT for years and years. I know some say it's just a "feel-good measure" to make us think we have a seat at the table, but until that's proven out, I have a real hard time believing the hunting community won't get a voice in this one. The issue is just too charged and we won't stand for being left out in the cold.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 11, 2011, 10:47:33 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 11, 2011, 11:37:00 AM
Ending on a good note! I better get off this computer now and get some stuff done, the wife is giving me the eye. Good luck in the draw, unless you have less than 6 points :chuckle: :chuckle:this happened to me yesterday and this morning my monitor went out so I had to go buy a new one .... crazy !!!
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2011, 12:02:30 PM
Try to get the Commission to adopt a more reasonable wolf plan.
Try to get legislators to overule an unreasonable wolf plan.
We are in a worse position than Idaho because the majority of Idahoans want rid of wolves and wolves were never on a state endangered list in Idaho. What we want as hunters has little bearing, the only issues that will matter in this debate are facts. We need to pound the facts coming out of idaho regarding wolf impacts on other wildlife, livestock, and human safety. I think we also need to pound on the fact that Washington is not required by federal law to have a self sustaining population and it is argueable they are already part of a larger self sustaing wolf population that roams several states and provinces in two countries. :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on June 11, 2011, 04:03:32 PM
Post by: yorketransport on June 11, 2011, 04:58:49 PM
If a package is leaking or damaged, FedEx can and will open, inspect, and re-box it. People should really read the fine print, it explains all of this. If you're not breaking any laws though, you don't have anything to worry about. ;)
And for all of the "SSS" folks, just because you didn't see any one watch you do it, doesn't mean I didn't see it. :peep: Just like I tell my kids, no matter where you are, there's always somebody watching you. :twocents:
Andrew
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 12, 2011, 06:47:49 PM
I don't know the whole story but,Well said
If a wolf or anything else for that matter is coming on my property and trying to cause harm to anything that lives on my land, humans, livestock, and such... bet your ass thats a dead wolf. Wouldn't even think twice about it........
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 13, 2011, 08:34:38 AM
I don't know the whole story but,Well said
If a wolf or anything else for that matter is coming on my property and trying to cause harm to anything that lives on my land, humans, livestock, and such... bet your ass thats a dead wolf. Wouldn't even think twice about it........
Yeah, but are you poaching moose and deer, and mailing wolf pelts to Canada? This guy goes way beyond protecting his cattle. Not to mention, his actions were just plain stupid and scream "come and get me, throw me in jail".
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 13, 2011, 11:00:15 AM
Allegedly. I know for a fact it's bs. Wdfw will try and get something out of nothing. Especially to ruin a guys reputationI don't know the whole story but,Well said
If a wolf or anything else for that matter is coming on my property and trying to cause harm to anything that lives on my land, humans, livestock, and such... bet your ass thats a dead wolf. Wouldn't even think twice about it........
Yeah, but are you poaching moose and deer, and mailing wolf pelts to Canada? This guy goes way beyond protecting his cattle. Not to mention, his actions were just plain stupid and scream "come and get me, throw me in jail".
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 13, 2011, 11:02:46 AM
[/quote]
Allegedly is correct. That you "know for a fact it's BS" tells me you know these people and their actions in this specific matter from 1st hand knowledge. Please share with the rest of us.
Post by: THunt on June 13, 2011, 11:27:15 AM
Post by: Little Dave on June 13, 2011, 07:53:47 PM
Wolves can cover a lot of ground. There's a plotting of locations that's not to hard to find of a collared wolf that moved between Colorado and Alberta. That distance is more than the distance between the Olympic Mountains and the Yellowstone pleateau. So the thinking person has to figure that there's something about our very small corner of the West that is already making this state unsuitable because there's been a huge population of wolves just east of here for years ... and it doesn't really matter what factors are causing that unsuitability.
While this might seem to some like a statement advocating an increase to the wolf population, it is not. Dumping wolves or any number of other extirpated species should be a low priority for the state. The very effort is on the order of dumping sugar in the ocean to make the water taste sweet. It shouldn't be done on the public's dime.
I hope the courts will favor reason in the alleged poaching case.
Post by: Special T on June 13, 2011, 10:25:49 PM
Professionals use their noodle and Plan a crime... This guy wasn't a professional.
Criminal... walks into a liquor store and robs by shooting.
Professional... In and out of a bank in 60 seconds with no shooting.
Average crack head Criminal
Hollywood bandit, Movie The Town or point break, or Heat... Professionals
Most of the time when you weigh the risk verses reward you come out better staying legal... That is what this guy should have done...
Post by: MikeWalking on June 13, 2011, 11:10:08 PM
And not having your name on a box leaking blood at the FedEx counter.. :DOH: :DOH:
Post by: jeepasaurusrex on June 14, 2011, 05:41:50 AM
Post by: CavemantheHunter on June 20, 2011, 01:19:55 PM
Post by: ErikN on June 25, 2011, 06:08:46 PM
If you don't shoot wolves illegally now, you will be shooting deer and elk illegally later, because they are on the fast track to becoming endangered if the packs get much bigger.
Post by: jackelope on June 25, 2011, 06:42:12 PM
So you're telling me you woild risk your livelihood, your family's well being and whatever else bad could come your way if you got stuffed into a prison for poaching wolves?
Mr. White had the same thought process as you, well except for the bloody box. Look where he ended up.
p.s. I will remind you of the rules because it's part of my "job". Bearpaw posted this here:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,78064.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,78064.0.html)
Quote
Hunting-Washington does not condone the illegal killing of wolves or any other wildlife. An organized and civilized society must have laws and those laws must be enforced for a society to remain organized.
It has been the policy of Hunting-Washington to allow most civil discussions. Moderators will sometimes remove comments they find and judge to violate forum rules especially if comments are unsuitable for family viewing or discussion on this forum. When comments are found that suggest illegal activity they are usually left on the forum so that law enforcement can monitor such activity.
Everyone has agreed to the Forum Rules when signing up to use this forum. Please note the following excerpt from the Forum Rules:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, slanderous, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on June 25, 2011, 09:03:09 PM
If you see a wolf shoot it, and don't tell. If you don't there won't be any deer or elk to hunt. I am not going to let some idiot politician destroy hunting for the future just to get some environmentalist vote. If you think I am over the top, I don't care. This is why Idaho is only selling half the non resident tags they did 5 years ago. I literally see 5% of the deer I saw 5 years ago. They kill everything. I used to see 150-200 deer a week in Idaho. This last year I saw 7 total, and heard a pack howling near our camp at night.
If you don't shoot wolves illegally now, you will be shooting deer and elk illegally later, because they are on the fast track to becoming endangered if the packs get much bigger.
What general area in Idaho are you hunting?
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 27, 2011, 06:29:21 AM
I would happen to guess this guy is a criminal. I say this because most criminals are caught because they animals of opportunity, not planners. If this guy had taken the time to really think about reducing wolves he would have done one of 2 things. 1 Done a little thinking about the most effective way of wiping out as many as these animals as possible. 2 Decided that the risk verses reward was worth staying legal. Shooting wolves is the least effective way to kill them off. Just think of a few articles that have been posted here... Legal hunting near Denali NP can only curb 3-6% of the population. Arial Gunning in ID in the Lolo area only killed 5 wolves...
Professionals use their noodle and Plan a crime... This guy wasn't a professional.
Criminal... walks into a liquor store and robs by shooting.
Professional... In and out of a bank in 60 seconds with no shooting.
Average crack head Criminal
Hollywood bandit, Movie The Town or point break, or Heat... Professionals
Most of the time when you weigh the risk verses reward you come out better staying legal... That is what this guy should have done...
[/quot did you think that maybe that's because he isn't a criminal!!!!!
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 27, 2011, 06:32:24 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 27, 2011, 07:20:25 AM
To the white family, I wish you all the best in court!!!
If he did what they say he did, I hope they throw the book at him. Not only was he stupid enough to mail a bloody wolf pelt, but he was apparently poaching other animals, as well. At best, he's not capable of any kind of good judgement. In all likeliness, he's a poacher and makes legal and ethical hunters, and hunting in general look bad to the 94% of WA residents who don't hunt.
I object to the state's proposed wolf plan and would've been fine if they'd never reintroduced them. But, the way for us to gain public support in our battle against WDFW's ridiculous wolf proposal ISN'T to poach animals and make sure everyone west of the Mississippi knows about it.
Post by: Special T on June 27, 2011, 09:23:20 AM
Post by: ErikN on June 27, 2011, 09:03:27 PM
Post by: teanawayslayer on June 28, 2011, 05:10:20 PM
TWslayer... I don't have any problems with the fact that this guy whacked a wolf. Would i do it? no.. Your quote of me left me slightly confuesed... Do i think he is criminal? yes do i think he is like most other criminal that do not think thier crimes through? yes. Am i going to :'( about it? not a drop.. From what i have heard it is pretty tough to catch poatchers, so if you get caught breaking the law that is the hardest to be caught at... :dunno:I respect your opinion
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 29, 2011, 07:07:24 AM
Ok, I'll keep my thoughts to myself. I wasn't trying to violate the websites policy. I just don't think the vast majority of people truly understand the massive devistation wolves are causing.
You don't need to keep your thoughts to yourself. Civil discourse is what this forum is all about. However, IMHO I think it's a valid point that poor public opinion could easily be as destructive to our hunting heritage as the gray wolf. This guy makes me look bad in the eyes of non-hunters and I believe I need to take a stand, as a hunter, that his actions were wrong, should not be tolerated, and do not represent my values and ethical imperatives in any way.