Lawsuit would prevent the WDFW from killing more wolves preying on cattle

[pianoman9701]

I guess delisting in accordance with federal guidelines would take care of this. Too bad the WDFW is in bed with these guys.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/sep/25/lawsuit-would-prevent-washington-killing-more-wolves-protect-cattle/

[pianoman9701]

Dear Director Unsworth,

One way around this lawsuit would be to delist wolves as endangered in the Eastern 1/3 of the state, in accordance with Federal delisting of the Northern Rockies area. The lawsuit alleges that your department is killing endangered wolves. Delisting them would make the lawsuit obsolete. If you wait for the wolf plan guidelines to be met first, it could easily be 20 more years or more before delisting is achieved. It’s painfully obvious that several of the guidelines for delisting are unachievable in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the communities of the NE corner are needlessly suffering the effects of a faulty plan.

Please also forward my comments to the Wildlife Commission, as their email address isn’t currently listed on the contact page.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply. Thank you,
Pianoman

[wolfbait]

Dear Director Unsworth,

One way around this lawsuit would be to delist wolves as endangered in the Eastern 1/3 of the state, in accordance with Federal delisting of the Northern Rockies area. The lawsuit alleges that your department is killing endangered wolves. Delisting them would make the lawsuit obsolete. If you wait for the wolf plan guidelines to be met first, it could easily be 20 more years or more before delisting is achieved. It’s painfully obvious that several of the guidelines for delisting are unachievable in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the communities of the NE corner are needlessly suffering the effects of a faulty plan.

Please also forward my comments to the Wildlife Commission, as their email address isn’t currently listed on the contact page.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply. Thank you,
Pianoman

Nice try P-man!

The people of Idaho had a huge party when they finally got rid of Unsworth, seems he is the perfect fit for WDF&Wolves..


"However, in today’s suit the Center for Biological Diversity and Cascadia Wildlands claim the agency’s killing of wolves from the Smackout and Sherman packs failed to undergo required environmental analysis. The protocol was created by a Wolf Advisory Group that includes about 18 people with a range of interests, from wolf advocates to ranchers. The protocol was revised this year."

And who is on the WAG?

[pianoman9701]

It's such a scam. I'd hate to be a cattleman. I'm arguing with a friend on the Stevens Co. Cattleman's FB page who supports the wolves and knows absolutely zero facts regarding their impact, non-lethal measures, diseases. These people are absolutely clueless and don't care one bit about cattlemen and their families and communities, and their livelihoods.

[wolfbait]

It's such a scam. I'd hate to be a cattleman. I'm arguing with a friend on the Stevens Co. Cattleman's FB page who supports the wolves and knows absolutely zero facts regarding their impact, non-lethal measures, diseases. These people are absolutely clueless and don't care one bit about cattlemen and their families and communities, and their livelihoods.

Bingo, we have a winner...

[Special T]

Pman we are too far down the slippery slope, the bell cannot be unrung.

Too many consessions have already been made, which out ourselves in a corner... anti hunter/wolf promoters had a strategy from day one and we were not organized to repell their advances.

[pianoman9701]

I and many others from the beginning have been predicting that the wolf lovers on the WAG and in the Commission would use the information they gained there to get a leg up on lawsuits to stop prospective cullings. This was either a huge lack of foresight on the part of Anderson and Unsworth or an outright undermining of concerned parties and other wildlife. It's revolting, everything about it.

[JLS]

Delisting is a solution, but it is not a given that EIS were required.  A judge will have to determine whether the wolf plan in its entirety sufficiently took into account lethal removal and addressed it.

It would be a major to have missed an EIS requirement, and we will quickly find out the validity of the lawsuit.  If an injunction is granted, then one could presume there is validity to the lawsuit.

If wolf lovers on the WAG did this intentionally and the others were too dumb to see it happening they deserve what they got. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolfbait]

I and many others from the beginning have been predicting that the wolf lovers on the WAG and in the Commission would use the information they gained there to get a leg up on lawsuits to stop prospective cullings. This was either a huge lack of foresight on the part of Anderson and Unsworth or an outright undermining of concerned parties and other wildlife. It's revolting, everything about it.

The USFWS, WDFW and the fake environmentalist groups are one and the same P-man, it has always been a no win situation, you should be able to see that by now just from the ID, MT and Wyoming history.


Read the info. Below and then compare it with what has happened in WA.



What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery

"Oversight Committee Bias

But even if FWS and IDFG were willing to lie about the declining prey base in central Idaho, the Wolf Oversight Committee was formed by the Legislature in 1993 to protect Idaho’s interests in the formation of a wolf plan. Why did that Committee fail to do its job?

One answer is that four of the seven voting members on the Oversight Committee supported the FWS/IDFG plan to import Canadian wolves and protect and manage them as a new big game species. Jack Lavin and Don Clower were hand-picked by IDFG to support its"

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.  s:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/

[pianoman9701]

Delisting is a solution, but it is not a given that EIS were required.  A judge will have to determine whether the wolf plan in its entirety sufficiently took into account lethal removal and addressed it.

It would be a major to have missed an EIS requirement, and we will quickly find out the validity of the lawsuit.  If an injunction is granted, then one could presume there is validity to the lawsuit.

If wolf lovers on the WAG did this intentionally and the others were too dumb to see it happening they deserve what they got. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It could be argued this is exactly what they wanted, if they did this intentionally. I'm quite certain that the cattlemen, communities, wildlife, and hunters of WA state don't deserve what they got - screwed.

[JLS]

I agree with you in that sportsmen got screwed with the wolf plan and delisting benchmark, but that has nothing to do with the WAG. 

Everyone at the table for the WAG has a responsibility to understand how policy and implementation affects their user group and constituency.  If they don’t, they shouldn’t be a representative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

I agree with you in that sportsmen got screwed with the wolf plan and delisting benchmark, but that has nothing to do with the WAG. 

Everyone at the table for the WAG has a responsibility to understand how policy and implementation affects their user group and constituency. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be a representative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't comment on that but my assertion is that it's quite possible those people were picked to give their animal rights organizations a leg up on inside information. I believe it's quite possible that cattlemen, wildlife, and sportsmen have been undermined on purpose by agendas coming out of the top office in Olympia. The governor receives big bucks for his campaigns from the people who oppose the wolf cullings.

[JLS]

I agree with you in that sportsmen got screwed with the wolf plan and delisting benchmark, but that has nothing to do with the WAG. 

Everyone at the table for the WAG has a responsibility to understand how policy and implementation affects their user group and constituency. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be a representative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't comment on that but my assertion is that it's quite possible those people were picked to give their animal rights organizations a leg up on inside information. I believe it's quite possible that cattlemen, wildlife, and sportsmen have been undermined on purpose by agendas coming out of the top office in Olympia. The governor receives big bucks for his campaigns from the people who oppose the wolf cullings.

They would have no more of a leg up than the cattleman groups or anyone else at the table.  If a public official directly misrepresented false information to one group to give advantage to the other, those are directly fireable offenses and would give legal standing for lawsuits by the aggrieved parties.

Nothing is impossible, but that's a pretty big allegation to make.

[JLS]

Delisting is a solution, but it is not a given that EIS were required.  A judge will have to determine whether the wolf plan in its entirety sufficiently took into account lethal removal and addressed it.

It would be a major to have missed an EIS requirement, and we will quickly find out the validity of the lawsuit.  If an injunction is granted, then one could presume there is validity to the lawsuit.

If wolf lovers on the WAG did this intentionally and the others were too dumb to see it happening they deserve what they got. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It could be argued this is exactly what they wanted, if they did this intentionally. I'm quite certain that the cattlemen, communities, wildlife, and hunters of WA state don't deserve what they got - screwed.

I should clarify my statement, as I realize it is harsh.  IF WDFW LIED to the cattlemen on the WAG, and they were misled because of this, then shame on WDFW and they deserve any fallout from such actions.  IF they did not, and portions of the WAG did not understand how wolf policy implementation would affect their user group, and did not understand their policy recommendations would not be legally defensible, then they deserve what they get.

When I sign off on things, it's my responsibility to ask questions.  If I don't ask the questions and/or don't understand the answers, that's on me.

[WSU]

It isn't the WAG's job to make sure WDFW follows state law regarding conducting an EIS, is it? 

I know from experience that WDFW is willing to ignore, bend, or break applicable environmental laws if it furthers their goals.  It wouldn't surprise me if they screwed this up, although you would think they would have dotted their I's and crossed their T's knowing litigation was likely.