Wolf shot near Pullman! Update 11/14/2014 pg. 8

[VarmintVentilator]

I personally have no use for wolves at all.  But after reading 6 pages of the good, the bad and the ugly, I can see why the wolf lovers are winning the war.   

[KFhunter]

I personally have no use for wolves at all.  But after reading 6 pages of the good, the bad and the ugly, I can see why the wolf lovers are winning the war.   

They're winning the war because they have the full backing of the state and federal government.

Do you have anything else to enlighten this thread with besides a snarky comment?

[wolfbait]

I personally have no use for wolves at all.  But after reading 6 pages of the good, the bad and the ugly, I can see why the wolf lovers are winning the war.   

They're winning the war because they have the full backing of the state and federal government.

Do you have anything else to enlighten this thread with besides a snarky comment?

Plus the fact that Mainstream media will not report the truth about wolves.

[VarmintVentilator]

Do you have anything else to enlighten this thread with besides a snarky comment?
[/quote]

Nope, you proved my point.  Besides you're the one that said the wolf lovers have won the war back on page 4

[wolfbait]

Poachers = scumbags.  Pretty simple.  Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. 

You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.

Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction".  It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.

Absolutely False: Non-native wolves were released in Idaho and YNP as an experimental population (those are the words used by USFWS). We hunters had no choice in the matter.

Keep it civil guys.  This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest.  Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling. 

The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger.  I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively.  I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did.  I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter.  It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag." 

I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes;  do you rally want a wolf around your house?  Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it?  Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood.  I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either.  Very situational and my guess is very stressful.  He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences.  I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away.   To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening. 

I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags.  This guy has not been convicted of poaching.  If he is, then he is a scumbag.  If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good.  If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag.  I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else.  Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter.  There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.

Your statement is totally off base, this person was not hunting and he never claimed to be hunting, he was protecting his property. This has zero to do with hunting or poaching, this is a totally unrelated issue to hunting.

Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?

Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.

Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?

Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?

We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.

How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. 

Don't you think it's kind of stupid to compare deer or elk to a wolf/wolves knowing what we do now? Maybe that comparison would work for those who still believe the sweet wolf lies told by CNW, DoW, etc..

People shouldn't have to put up with wolves killing their livestock/pets or wondering through neighborhoods, after all aren't the wolves suppose to be wild?

David Mech said that over protection of wolves would hurt wolf recovery the most, I can see where that is coming true in WA at a rather rapid rate.

[idahohuntr]

Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?

Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.

Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?

Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?

We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.

How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. 

Deer?  Rosebush?

Is that like timber companies slaughtering bears by the 1000's because they're peeling trees?  WDFW allows that..


Every year someone is prosecuted for shooting a bear,  WDFW arm chair QB's those decisions.  They don't take into account if that person really and truly felt threatened but rather charge based on what they see at the scene, the bear corpse and totality of the circumstances.   They can't soul search and make a determination that "YA, this person thought they were going to die"  It's impossible.  So it is possible some of those people really did think they were going to die or be seriously hurt, or that the bear might seriously hurt a loved one or pet, or livestock in the near future.  WDFW doesn't and can't take that into account.  Much like the farmer that this thread is about, killing that wolf in Pullman.  What did the farmer truly feel at the time this incident took place?  Only the farmer and one's who believe him will know.   WDFW will only look at the wolf, the evidence and totality of the circumstances and like all cases arm chair QB it and choose to send the evidence forward or not - in this case they did; but that does not mean we'll ever really know what was in the heart of this farmer when he pulled the trigger on that wolf.

If I'm walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on me must I wait until they harm me? Must I wait until the bullet impacts my chest?


What we have is a bunch of people each looking through their own lens at this case, some will jump to the farmers side and some will jump to the wolf huggers side having landed on what ever side of the fence they've landed on long ago.

Bigtex, I'm with you on this one...an animal walking across the landscape in and of itself does not mean it is automatically a defense of life/property situation.  Simply seeing a wolf or a bear or a cougar does not mean you are going to be attacked or your livestock/pets/children/neighbors/grandma/whatever are going to be attacked.  Lets see the evidence presented.  If this farmer was truly protecting life/property, then he did good and I support him 100%.  If the evidence shows that he chased the wolf down in a vehicle for several miles and shot it when there was never any danger to life/property he is a poacher. 

"There's no legal definition of "poacher" so no, he's not a poacher as there's no such thing." - KF Hunter 

Care to qualify or clarify that statement KF?  I have pasted it here in its entirety.  I must not be reading/interpreting it correctly when I see you write there is no such thing as a poacher?  Surely that is not what you meant???

As BT points out, we'll see what the prosecutor determines.  Based on WDFW statements to date it appears charges are likely.   

 

[idahohuntr]

Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction".  It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.
 

Actually hunters nor anyone else can own wildlife here in Wa. and that's a good thing. There may or may not have been a deliberate re-intro of the wolf into Wa. but we are surely being "forced" to accept it. What I find disturbing is that the word you love so much; "scumbag" isn't on the auto bleep list. Every time I read idahohuntr now i'm gonna think, scumbag.   

Your wrong again.  We all own the wildlife in this state.  Hunters, non-hunters...we all own the wildlife.  Its a very basic element of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation...you should check it out sometime.   

I'm sorry that you find it disturbing that I equate poachers to scumbags.  I will never understand why legal hunters would support poachers.  As far as what you think of me...lets just say I won't be losing any sleep 

[bearpaw]

Poachers = scumbags.  Pretty simple.  Those who want to defend poaching...go for it...just don't call yourselves hunters. 

You know I fail to recall that hunters were asked for their opinions or vote on the forced reintroduction of wolves into our present ecosystem. I kinda think that if your shooting a wolf in Wa. today for whatever reason as like submitting a late ballot. Bang! Vote recorded.

Hunters are not the only members of public who own the wildlife in Washington state...and there was not a "forced reintroduction".  It is a natural expansion of a species that is increasing in population size.

Absolutely False: Non-native wolves were released in Idaho and YNP as an experimental population (those are the words used by USFWS). We hunters had no choice in the matter.

Keep it civil guys.  This is a real problem that is effecting hunters everywher in the northwest.  Most of us are very passionate about the wolf topic (Pro or Against)....but we shouldn't be attacking each other with name calling. 

The only person that really knows what happened is the farmer that pulled the trigger.  I tend to believe that wolves have little value in our ecosystem and should be managed aggressively.  I don't begrudge the farmer for making the decision he did.  I also don't believe that this makes me any less of a hunter.  It darn sure does not make me a "Skumbag." 

I appreciate if people believe he was in the wrong....but try and put yourself in his shoes;  do you rally want a wolf around your house?  Would you tolerate it and if not what would you do about it?  Maybe run it off, maybe call the game dept. or maybe make a decision to protect your family, livestock and livelihood.  I wasn't there so I don't know what I would do.....but I can't guarantee I wouldn't have shot the wolf either.  Very situational and my guess is very stressful.  He made a decision and now he has to live with the consequences.  I personally hope he is exonerated....and this thing goes away.   To think our government would value a wolf over the safety of a human, human's livelihood, or land is sickening. 

I stand by my statement that poachers are scumbags.  This guy has not been convicted of poaching.  If he is, then he is a scumbag.  If he was protecting his family or livestock...he did good.  If the reports that he saw a wolf and chased it several miles in a vehicle and shot it are true...he poached and he is a scumbag.  I have no idea what happened so I will wait to see the evidence that is presented like everyone else.  Folks can rationalize things however they want, blatant violations of wildlife laws (e.g., killing a protected species or shooting an elk out of season) should not be tolerated by anyone who calls themselves a hunter.  There are plenty of wildlife laws I disagree with in this state; and I believe I have sound justification for why they should be repealed...that does not entitle me (or others) to violate them.

Your statement is totally off base, this person was not hunting and he never claimed to be hunting, he was protecting his property. This has zero to do with hunting or poaching, this is a totally unrelated issue to hunting.

Can I shoot every deer and elk that walks through my yard because they might eat the rose bushes? I'm protecting my property right?

Every couple years there is someone who shoots a bear on their property screaming "self defense" in WA and it turns out the bear was simply walking through their property and the guy decided to shoot it.

Can I walk down the street and shoot someone because they might harm me?

Truth is, we don't know the 100% truth/facts about this incident. Was the wolf simply out in a field and the landowner decided to go after it? Or was the animal creeping in on livestock, people, etc?

We have a bunch of people supposedly "in the know" about the incident yet they can't even agree on similar stories.

How about we wait for the investigation to conclude and the Whitman County Prosecutor to say something (which in this case they will) before we decide if this was a life/property threat or someone who saw a wolf and went after it. 

I appreciate your perspective but I do see some differences in the comparison of wolves attacking livestock and stalking people and with deer and elk impacting rose bushes or alfalfa fields as several others have explained.

I would remind you that in Washington when elk or deer are impacting fields or orchards farmers are given depredation tags to eliminate those deer/elk causing damage. Perhaps this case will be a stepping stone to more liberalized ability to protect ourselves against damage by wolves.

Something that many forget is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will consider the statements from the individual as being truthful until proven untruthful in a court of law. So until a court (not some biased investigator looking for a high profile case to benefit his resume) proves the statements by the man who shot the wolf to be false, until then I will side with the citizen who claims he was acting in self defense. Even if the court finds the man guilty considering the consequences of wolves and their track record in Eastern Washington, I may still side with the citizen and feel that the law itself is faulty. History has shown us that many laws are unfair, untested, and in time are changed or removed entirely. I think these laws regarding wolves will be changed as wolves continue to impact Washington. Fifty years from now it may be more commonly understood how unfair and misguided this forced introduction of non-native wolves really is.

[pianoman9701]

I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere. Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself.

[PA BEN]

Algonquin Provincial Park is one of several areas where people are encouraged to "howl" at the wolves in hopes of a response from the wild wolves in the area. In August, 1996, the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were spending a nine-day family vacation in Algonquin and joined a group of Scouts in "howling" at the wolves. They were answered by the howl of a solitary wolf.
 
That night the Delventhals decided to sleep out under the stars. Young Zachariah was dreaming when he suddenly felt excruciating pain in his face. A lone wolf had bit him in the face and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach screamed and Tracy, Zach's Mother, raced to his side and picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from Zach's wounds.
 
The wolf stood menacingly less than a yard away. Tracy yelled at her husband, Thom, who leapt from his sleeping bag and charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged at Tracy and Zach. The charges were repeated. Finally the wolf left. Thom turned a flashlight on 11-year-old Zach and gasped "Oh, my God!" "The boy's face had been ripped open. His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing." Zach was taken to a hospital in Toronto where a plastic surgeon performed four hours of reconstructive surgery. Zach received more than 80 stitches in his face.
 
Canadian officials baited the Delventhals' campsite and captured and destroyed a 60-lb wild male wolf. No further attacks have occurred since. (Cook, Kathy; "Night of the Wolf" READER'S DIGEST, July 1997, pp. 114-119.)
Humans have been attacked by wolves in Alaska. The late David Tobuk carried scars on his face from a wolf attack on him as a small child. The incident occurred around the turn of the century in interior Alaska.  David was playing in his village near a river. An old wolf came into the village and bit David in the face and started to carry him off.  Other Eskimos saw the wolf dragging the child off and started yelling and screaming. The wolf dropped the child and was shot by an old Eskimo trapper who had a gun. (Interview with Frank Tobuk, brother, Bettles, Alaska, December 1988.)
 

[wolfbait]

Algonquin Provincial Park is one of several areas where people are encouraged to "howl" at the wolves in hopes of a response from the wild wolves in the area. In August, 1996, the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were spending a nine-day family vacation in Algonquin and joined a group of Scouts in "howling" at the wolves. They were answered by the howl of a solitary wolf.
 
That night the Delventhals decided to sleep out under the stars. Young Zachariah was dreaming when he suddenly felt excruciating pain in his face. A lone wolf had bit him in the face and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach screamed and Tracy, Zach's Mother, raced to his side and picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from Zach's wounds.
 
The wolf stood menacingly less than a yard away. Tracy yelled at her husband, Thom, who leapt from his sleeping bag and charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged at Tracy and Zach. The charges were repeated. Finally the wolf left. Thom turned a flashlight on 11-year-old Zach and gasped "Oh, my God!" "The boy's face had been ripped open. His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing." Zach was taken to a hospital in Toronto where a plastic surgeon performed four hours of reconstructive surgery. Zach received more than 80 stitches in his face.
 
Canadian officials baited the Delventhals' campsite and captured and destroyed a 60-lb wild male wolf. No further attacks have occurred since. (Cook, Kathy; "Night of the Wolf" READER'S DIGEST, July 1997, pp. 114-119.)
Humans have been attacked by wolves in Alaska. The late David Tobuk carried scars on his face from a wolf attack on him as a small child. The incident occurred around the turn of the century in interior Alaska.  David was playing in his village near a river. An old wolf came into the village and bit David in the face and started to carry him off.  Other Eskimos saw the wolf dragging the child off and started yelling and screaming. The wolf dropped the child and was shot by an old Eskimo trapper who had a gun. (Interview with Frank Tobuk, brother, Bettles, Alaska, December 1988.)

Sounds quite a bit worse then say elk or deer eating the rose bush in the yard.

Long before the illegal wolf introduction these concerns and others were brought forward and introduced to the USFWS, who then ignored them as they buddied up with pro-wolf groups like Defenders of Wildlife. The USFWS knowingly lied about the impact wolves would have on the game herds, livestock and the dangers to people through wolf attacks and diseases. Now here we are after watching the impact of wolves in ID, MT, and Wyoming for 18 plus years, having the same discussions, with the same kind of people buddied up with the same environmental groups as if the wolves change when they are introduced to a different states.

The environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies brain-washed a whole generation of people, and after 18 years of lies exposed these same agencies are still telling the same lies, and mainstream media is still following them around publishing the same garbage. Amazing!

[idahohuntr]

Something that many forget is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I will consider the statements from the individual as being truthful until proven untruthful in a court of law. So until a court (not some biased investigator looking for a high profile case to benefit his resume) proves the statements by the man who shot the wolf to be false, until then I will side with the citizen who claims he was acting in self defense. Even if the court finds the man guilty considering the consequences of wolves and their track record in Eastern Washington, I may still side with the citizen and feel that the law itself is faulty. History has shown us that many laws are unfair, untested, and in time are changed or removed entirely. I think these laws regarding wolves will be changed as wolves continue to impact Washington.

What statements has this man made?  I'm not aware of any.  All I've seen are statements by WDFW.  Can you please post this farmers statements about the events and what he claimed happened.  I completely agree the guy is innocent until proven guilty, however, if guilty of violating wildlife laws then he is a poacher and he should be punished accordingly.  We have to have laws, and just because you personally might not like them does not give you or others any sort of entitlement to not obey the laws.  Gee...maybe I have decided this forced 3 pt. min on deer is unfair, untested, and in time will be changed or removed entirely.  I think I should be able to shoot any buck.  Oh, wait, I like this game.  I also have decided the forced limited quota branch bull tag management in SE Wa is unfair...how do you justify which laws are ok to follow and which are not.  What other wildlife laws do you support people violating?  Party hunting? Spot lighting? Trespassing? Or any of it is ok as long as it involves a predator just not a deer or elk? 

Based on your statements, I think you should probably change your wording in the thread about illegal activities and wolves so that its a little more genuine and honest.

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.

I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere. Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself.

I don't see hunters supporting poaching on this thread. I see hunters supporting ranchers and farmers in the right to protect their families and property. I agree all folks have the right to protect themselves.  If the facts and evidence in this case shows that is what the farmer was doing, then he did well.  However, if the evidence supports statements by WDFW that this is not a defense of life/property, well, then the guy is a poacher and should be punished accordingly. A wolf was killed by a farmer in a place where wolves will never belong and are inappropriate in any circumstance. The Palouse is farming and ranching country, mostly farming. Again, because of the short shortsightedness of the WDFW and Wildlife Commission to not designate and identify what is acceptable wolf habitat and what is not, they're being allowed to proliferate anywhere.
Your statements imply that WDFW can control where animals move at all times across the entire state.  That is ridiculous.  Wolves are highly migratory.  It is not acceptable for any landowner to unilaterally decide what animal will and will not be allowed to cross his land.
Idahohntr, I'm aware of your great love for the wolves and I'm also aware that love has clouded your vision for any other veiwpoint. You're a rabid supporter of them without consideration of the people who are actually affected. Well, you still have it wrong.  I don't love or support wolves.  I love and support wildlife laws.  So much so that I even follow the ones which I believe to be misguided and unfair until such time that I can change them.  For you to suggest I have no consideration of people who are actually affected by wolves is grossly inaccurate.  It would be akin to me saying you hate all wildlife and you hate all wildlife laws.  You are a rabid supporter of poachers and your rabid support of poaching wildlife has clouded your view.  Now how fair is that? This is the problem that we have in WA today with wildlife management by popularity instead of science. The people in Seattle got to apply the most pressure to have plans passed which will never affect them. And in deference and preference to those whiners, the WDFW pushed their ridiculous plan through, and the generations old ranches and farm families and businesses are the only ones to pay the price. That is, other than hunters paying most of the costs of the program itself. On this point I agree.  That is why wolf management is so different in WA than in the other NRM states.  You have to remember though, wildlife management is mostly social/people management and so things like acceptable predator numbers, elk numbers, harvest goals etc...those are social issues...not scientific.  Wolf management has little to do with science.  All wolf management is about managing the social aspects...the science part is quite easy.  Wolves are here and they will not be going away.  All that is left to sort out are the social issues.  I always laugh when folks (on all sides of these controversial issues) say we need to use "science" when the issue is entirely social.

[ICEMAN]

From my truck at 4500 feet....

Didn't read all.

Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?

[bigtex]

Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?

Under state law if the county prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, the WA Attorney General's Office can step in and prosecute the case. While it is rare for this to happen, an endangered species take case would certainly be one that the AG's office would have to give a hard look at.

[wolfbait]

Has anyone suggested a campaign to ask the Whitman county prosecutor to not charge the individual in this case?

Under state law if the county prosecutor declines to prosecute a case, the WA Attorney General's Office can step in and prosecute the case. While it is rare for this to happen, an endangered species take case would certainly be one that the AG's office would have to give a hard look at.

And the joke is, these wolves have never been endangered.