Post by: bearpaw on October 04, 2011, 01:23:28 PM
Jim asked a lot of good questions about our group and most importantly about wolves. I presented him with some info about Washington and our wildlife and a lot of facts indicating why 15 BP's are too many for Washington when compared to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Jim said the show will air on several radio stations in Washington on Sunday Oct 9 starting at 2 PM.
Online: http://www.kitz1400.com/schedule/index.php (http://www.kitz1400.com/schedule/index.php) (at 2 PM Sunday Oct 9, click the listen button at the bottom of the page)
KITZ 1400 AM in Silverdale
KTGK 920 AM in Olympia
Outdoor Talk Network www.outdoortalknetwork.com (http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com)
Jim Slinsky is a sportsman, conservationist and defender of our rights to hunt, fish, trap, and shoot. Jim is a staunch advocate of the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment. He is the Founder, Producer and Host of the “Outdoor Talk Network”, a nationally, syndicated, outdoor-talk radio program. The “Outdoor Talk Network” is an informative and entertaining program with the focus on fishing, hunting, trapping, shooting and related environmental and legislative issues. Jim’s outdoor talk radio program has been ongoing for over fifteen years. He has interviewed the most important and influential people in the outdoor industry. Jim’s philosophies are reflected in his words, “Our hunting and fishing success stories are merely the by product of our political and environmental accomplishments."
Post by: asl20bball on October 04, 2011, 01:46:40 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 04, 2011, 01:54:48 PM
Post by: firefighter4607 on October 04, 2011, 01:55:36 PM
Post by: sebek556 on October 04, 2011, 02:01:00 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on October 04, 2011, 02:05:24 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 04, 2011, 03:19:59 PM
I think it's great that you are involved and well informed, also passing on views that are not on the wdfw side of things. My only concern is that wdfw think that any breeding pairs are good for WA. I'm sure we are a minority but a few of us think there should be no breading pairs. I don't believe we can control wolves numbers as well as most think. My question to you is, How many breeding pairs do you think we should have? I don't want to give you the wrong idea, I'm not trying to step on your toe's. I'm just curious what you think the number should be. Again thanks for being a voice.
Good questions trophyhunt,
I didn't specify how many wolves are suitable. I detailed facts regarding Washington being the smallest of the NRM states that has wolves, Washington has the highest human population, Washington less than half the state and federal lands as ID, MT, or WY, Washington has the highest human population density across the countryside with 2 to 6 times more human population than ID, MT, or WY living in our rural areas, and Washington has the smallest game herds of the states. I detailed the fact that after experiencing wolves the management objectives of ID/MT/WY ranges from 10 to 15 bp's and that Washington simply does not have the habitat or game herds to support as many wolves as these other states and therefore the proposal for 15 BP's is ludicrous. I explained that wolves have never been endangered there were 60,000 wolves in north America before wolves were introduced in the NRM and I mentioned how the WDFW has distorted facts about wolves and their impacts in the proposed wolf plan. I commented that I was optimistic the Commission would review the current science coming out of the other states and the facts regarding Washington and approve a better plan than has been proposed by WDFW.
_______________________________
You asked my opinion so here it is. Washington's management of our game herds is already stressed by development, liberal management, and too many predators. The last thing we need in Washington are more predators when the last remaining caribou in the lower 48 are barely surviving, our moose and sheep are limited in number, many deer and elk herds are below objective, and excessive populations of cougar and bear are already causing problems for residents and ranchers around the state. WE DON'T NEED ANY WOLVES IN WASHINGTON!
However, Federal Law has dictated we must come up with a management plan to delist wolves so the state can manage them. Washington is in the same position as the other states, we are stuck with wolves. I only hope it will be a reasonable number that will not have excessive impacts, or we'll experience the same problems we have seen in the other states. :twocents:
Post by: TheHunt on October 04, 2011, 03:29:55 PM
I still do not understand why we measure wolves in breading pairs rather then total numbers.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 04, 2011, 03:40:20 PM
Post by: gaddy on October 04, 2011, 03:53:28 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 04, 2011, 03:55:04 PM
Great job, Dale. I can't wait to hear it. If it's got a webcast option, please send the link.
Jim said the show will air on several radio stations in Washington on Sunday Oct 9 starting at 2 PM.
Online: http://www.kitz1400.com/schedule/index.php (http://www.kitz1400.com/schedule/index.php) (at 2 PM Sunday Oct 9, click the listen button at the bottom of the page)
Post by: dlaw on October 04, 2011, 03:56:55 PM
Post by: KillBilly on October 04, 2011, 05:53:45 PM
Post by: runamuk on October 04, 2011, 06:15:20 PM
I gotta say more emphasis needs to be made on the caribou issue it is totally unrealistic to be all over bringing back one species and not another and in this case the wolves have the potential to destroy the caribou, but no one cares...except maybe me :dunno: not sure what is is but I would love to see a thriving population of bou in this state and wolves wont help this at all... we had wolves they have been here all along and now our existing wolves risk being pushed out by these new wolves that are bigger and badder.
and I still support a threshold number that our state can carry and further managed at an area by area level.... as opposed to a breeding pairs or packs....thats too liberal and nonspecific and from a management standpoint is not manageable :dunno:
Post by: mulehunter on October 04, 2011, 06:50:18 PM
Mulehunter.
Post by: trophyhunt on October 05, 2011, 06:33:36 AM
I am with you 100%. Thanks for the response, I definetly feel you represent most of us on how we feel about the situation. Your very informed, thanks again and keep up the fight. Most don't understand completly what's at stake here, we need more of you in this battle. Take care and thanks again.I think it's great that you are involved and well informed, also passing on views that are not on the wdfw side of things. My only concern is that wdfw think that any breeding pairs are good for WA. I'm sure we are a minority but a few of us think there should be no breading pairs. I don't believe we can control wolves numbers as well as most think. My question to you is, How many breeding pairs do you think we should have? I don't want to give you the wrong idea, I'm not trying to step on your toe's. I'm just curious what you think the number should be. Again thanks for being a voice.
Good questions trophyhunt,
I didn't specify how many wolves are suitable. I detailed facts regarding Washington being the smallest of the NRM states that has wolves, Washington has the highest human population, Washington less than half the state and federal lands as ID, MT, or WY, Washington has the highest human population density across the countryside with 2 to 6 times more human population than ID, MT, or WY living in our rural areas, and Washington has the smallest game herds of the states. I detailed the fact that after experiencing wolves the management objectives of ID/MT/WY ranges from 10 to 15 bp's and that Washington simply does not have the habitat or game herds to support as many wolves as these other states and therefore the proposal for 15 BP's is ludicrous. I explained that wolves have never been endangered there were 60,000 wolves in north America before wolves were introduced in the NRM and I mentioned how the WDFW has distorted facts about wolves and their impacts in the proposed wolf plan. I commented that I was optimistic the Commission would review the current science coming out of the other states and the facts regarding Washington and approve a better plan than has been proposed by WDFW.
_______________________________
You asked my opinion so here it is. Washington's management of our game herds is already stressed by development, liberal management, and too many predators. The last thing we need in Washington are more predators when the last remaining caribou in the lower 48 are barely surviving, our moose and sheep are limited in number, many deer and elk herds are below objective, and excessive populations of cougar and bear are already causing problems for residents and ranchers around the state. WE DON'T NEED ANY WOLVES IN WASHINGTON!
However, Federal Law has dictated we must come up with a management plan to delist wolves so the state can manage them. Washington is in the same position as the other states, we are stuck with wolves. I only hope it will be a reasonable number that will not have excessive impacts, or we'll experience the same problems we have seen in the other states. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on October 06, 2011, 10:48:14 AM
Post by: firefighter4607 on October 09, 2011, 01:49:07 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 09, 2011, 05:49:46 AM
KITZ 1400 AM in Silverdale
KTGK 920 AM in Olympia
Post by: Mark Brenckle on October 09, 2011, 07:31:30 AM
http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/Outdoor_Talk_Network/Welcome.html (http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/Outdoor_Talk_Network/Welcome.html)
Post by: 358NM on October 10, 2011, 09:21:49 AM
You are 100% right we are stuck with the wolves and I am afraid we will never get rid of them again.
Limiting the number is the only alternative we have at this time.
Post by: NWBREW on October 10, 2011, 09:50:36 AM
Post by: Cougeyes on October 10, 2011, 11:14:42 AM
Post by: firefighter4607 on October 10, 2011, 01:59:46 PM
Dang, I missed this whole thread till just now. Was it posted on the WFW website? Is there anyway to find a link to listen to it for those of us....or me...that missed it? Thanks Dale for all you are doing.
It should be archived soon here is a link to the archived section. http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/Outdoor_Talk_Network/Archived_Radio_Shows/Archive.html (http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/Outdoor_Talk_Network/Archived_Radio_Shows/Archive.html)
Also once it is archived you could download it to iTunes.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 10:29:29 AM
http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/100811_1274_hr1.MP3 (http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/100811_1274_hr1.MP3)
Post by: CedarPants on October 12, 2011, 11:39:23 AM
Post by: firefighter4607 on October 12, 2011, 12:30:45 PM
Here's the link to the specific interview. Nice job, Dale!Where did you find that at? I have been looking in the archived section for the last week.
http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/100811_1274_hr1.MP3 (http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/100811_1274_hr1.MP3)
Post by: Huntboy on October 12, 2011, 12:57:41 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 12, 2011, 01:06:08 PM
Here's the link to the specific interview. Nice job, Dale!Where did you find that at? I have been looking in the archived section for the last week.
http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/100811_1274_hr1.MP3 (http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/100811_1274_hr1.MP3)
I got it from the interviewer, Jim Slinsky. I'm just that smart!
Post by: CoryTDF on October 12, 2011, 01:10:51 PM
Post by: huntrights on October 12, 2011, 01:20:05 PM
Post by: bearpaw on October 13, 2011, 06:12:06 AM
I finally got to listen to it myself, thanks for posting the link pianoman.
Jim caught me a little off guard, I was tired, busy setting camps and hunting, and not as quick thinking as I might have been some other time. I wished I would have commented that Wyomings plan only calls for 10 bp's and Oregons plan only calls for 7 bp's. :bash:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 13, 2011, 07:42:47 AM