Pend Oreille wolf study UW?

[MuleDeer]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

How much do you know about Unsworth?  Facts, of course, not just hearsay that you have read somewhere.
How about a direct quote from him: "They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: "Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”
How about the fact he has been an active hunter and license holder for many years?  Anti?  Guess again.

Mitch Friedman of CNW claims to be a hunter also, and yet he fights for wolves and grizzly bears or any other critter that will shut down public lands.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168303.50.html

Is this the quote you are referring to? “...The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”
He's explaining there that ONLY focusing on one aspect of a resource isn't the best option, so they will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.  Yes, he should has said "also" to that.  But is looking for all of the best options for a game dept to raise revenue an evil thing?
As far as Mitch Friedman goes, didn't know he was part of the conversation.  But I'll bite.  Mitch is an avid hunter; I know him personally and have worked with him.  The word you left out of your statement about him is "management".  He and CNW do fight for wolf and grizzly "management".  Their intent and purpose isn't to shut down public lands, but to protect species.  Do they do it in a way you don't agree with, and does it sometimes hurt our public access?  Yes.  But working with them can help them see better management options that don't close down public lands, but still achieve the goals.  I'm willing to work with any group if I believe I can help to make a difference.  As soon as we all quit the willingness to try and make a difference, we have lost.

[idahohuntr]

Unsworth is as much a hunter as anyone on this forum.  Its unfortunate to see folks resort to blatant lies to try and support their radical positions.

[Special T]

I am reserving judgement on him but at least it "Appears" that he is better than our last leader...

[wolfbait]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

How much do you know about Unsworth?  Facts, of course, not just hearsay that you have read somewhere.
How about a direct quote from him: "They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: "Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”
How about the fact he has been an active hunter and license holder for many years?  Anti?  Guess again.

Mitch Friedman of CNW claims to be a hunter also, and yet he fights for wolves and grizzly bears or any other critter that will shut down public lands.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168303.50.html

Is this the quote you are referring to? “...The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”
He's explaining there that ONLY focusing on one aspect of a resource isn't the best option, so they will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.  Yes, he should has said "also" to that.  But is looking for all of the best options for a game dept to raise revenue an evil thing?
As far as Mitch Friedman goes, didn't know he was part of the conversation.  But I'll bite.  Mitch is an avid hunter; I know him personally and have worked with him.  The word you left out of your statement about him is "management".  He and CNW do fight for wolf and grizzly "management".  Their intent and purpose isn't to shut down public lands, but to protect species.  Do they do it in a way you don't agree with, and does it sometimes hurt our public access?  Yes.  But working with them can help them see better management options that don't close down public lands, but still achieve the goals.  I'm willing to work with any group if I believe I can help to make a difference.  As soon as we all quit the willingness to try and make a difference, we have lost.

You wanted a "quote" and I gave you one, and now you want to change the quote so that he looks better? You really don't want to hear about his past history from Idaho and thats fine. It seems WDFW would just a soon ID, MT and Wyoming's wolf history was forgotten also, that way there wouldn't be any comparison in how wolves should and shouldn't be managed. As it is, it seems WDFW think they have a different wolf then Idaho, look at the wolf plan they adopted. Look at the pitiful attempt at confirming wolf packs and BP's, if WDFW were truly interested in managing wolves so as to avoid the impact on WA ungulates they could have delisted a few years ago easily.

IDFG allowed a huge build up of wolves before they were finally forced to do anything, WDFW are playing the same game, the difference is WA has never had the amount of ungulates as Idaho, WA's game herds could look just like the Lolo elk herd by the time WDFW are forced to respond.


Personally I don't care if unsworth or anyone else who is pro-wolf hunts or not, I brought Mitch of CNW into the discussion to show it really doesn't matter. CNW and DoW were in on the first WDFW wolf push in the 1980's and 90's.

Unsworth is as much a hunter as anyone on this forum.  Its unfortunate to see folks resort to blatant lies to try and support their radical positions.

"Its unfortunate to see folks resort to blatant lies to try and support their radical positions."

Who exactly are you talking about I-hunter?

[grundy53]

IF you think the WDFW isnt led by Anti's thats OK, but still does not detract from my argument. the ACTIONS of the WDFW show us that they are more worried about Anti groups than the sportsmen revolting...

And they have a hard time figuring out why recruitment is so low. 

Not only led by Anti's, but also infiltrated by anti's and they just hired a brand new one to lead the department with Unsworth.

How much do you know about Unsworth?  Facts, of course, not just hearsay that you have read somewhere.
How about a direct quote from him: "They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: "Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”
How about the fact he has been an active hunter and license holder for many years?  Anti?  Guess again.

Mitch Friedman of CNW claims to be a hunter also, and yet he fights for wolves and grizzly bears or any other critter that will shut down public lands.

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,168303.50.html

Is this the quote you are referring to? “...The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”
He's explaining there that ONLY focusing on one aspect of a resource isn't the best option, so they will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.  Yes, he should has said "also" to that.  But is looking for all of the best options for a game dept to raise revenue an evil thing?
As far as Mitch Friedman goes, didn't know he was part of the conversation.  But I'll bite.  Mitch is an avid hunter; I know him personally and have worked with him.  The word you left out of your statement about him is "management".  He and CNW do fight for wolf and grizzly "management".  Their intent and purpose isn't to shut down public lands, but to protect species.  Do they do it in a way you don't agree with, and does it sometimes hurt our public access?  Yes.  But working with them can help them see better management options that don't close down public lands, but still achieve the goals.  I'm willing to work with any group if I believe I can help to make a difference.  As soon as we all quit the willingness to try and make a difference, we have lost.

Wow....

[JimmyHoffa]

Too bad they were so key in getting the hound-baiting and trapping bans passed......hard to believe they are pro 'management'. 

[Special T]

Too bad they were so key in getting the hound-baiting and trapping bans passed......hard to believe they are pro 'management'.

These kind of statements are what we SHOULD AWAYS bring up. Show the true colors by peoples, and Orgs actions...

[jasnt]

Sad thing is that even if we were giving unlimited hunting of wolves in Washington we will never be able to stop the spread or growth of wolves in wa. With the wolf plan we have I believe it will allow actual wolf population (not minimum count) to get too large for our ungulate population to handle.  NE wa has the lowest elk numbers and highest wolf numbers. Unregulated wolves are making it worse. Even if we started today with a coyote like season on wolves in NE corner. We as hunters(can't even include the trappers on this one cause they won't be able to do much with current laws ;( ) will not be able to steady numbers or stop growth, best we could hope for would be a slitely slower growth rate.