The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”

[WAcoyotehunter]

The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf

What does that document have to do with this conservation, other than detailing the loss of habitats and a plan to help species imperiled by those losses?

[wolfbait]

The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf

What does that document have to do with this conservation, other than detailing the loss of habitats and a plan to help species imperiled by those losses?

Gee Whiz Wacoyote, lets see, the environmentalists want to use a grouse to shut down mining for grouse "Habitat". The grouse aren't endangered just like the Canadian wolves weren't endangered, yet WDFW protect them above all else. WDFW pretend to care about protecting all wildlife yet they protect the predators while hunting the heck out of the ungulates. How long before WDFW finally admit the deer and elk etc. are in bad shape because of an over population of predators? Probably never, they will insist it is because there is not enough habitat.  Isn't that what you have been pushing for, more habitat? I didn't realize you had taken the time to read WDFW's Wildlands Project.

COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGIES
CWCS ACTIONS
Leave no species behind
Protect wildlife and habitats most in need of help, while working to keep common species common.
 Identify Species of Greatest Conservation Need
 Determine priority habitats
 Identify the most serious
conservation problems
 Identify the most effective
conservation actions
Build a plan of plans
Use existing plans, assessments, and scientific tools.
Review and synthesize hundreds of conservation plans that provide information and recommendations for priority wildlife species and the habitats upon which they depend.
Strengthen conservation partnerships

Emphasize biodiversity conservation
Identify, protect and restore areas that support the greatest diversity of wildlife.
Coordinate development and implementation of the CWCS with the Washington Biodiversity Council.

How does not managing predators fit into more wildlife?

Leverage taxpayer dollars
by expanding on WDFW’s existing partnerships and identifying new opportunities for cooperating with other organizations.
Partners:
Federal and state agencies Local governments
Farmers and forest landowners Treaty Indian tribes
Nonprofit conservation
organizations
Local and regional land trusts==Do you see where it says anything about hunting or money from hunting? Or is this plan a few more years down the road after the wolves finish up WA?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf

[wolfbait]

The Northern Plains Resource Council, comprised of farmers and ranchers in the Tongue River basin in SE Montana have been fighting the Tongue River railroad and development of the Otter Creek coal deposits for many years.  It has nothing to do with sage grouse.  They are trying to protect their livelihood from much more dangerous entities than the Wildlands Project.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf

What does that document have to do with this conservation, other than detailing the loss of habitats and a plan to help species imperiled by those losses?

The CWCS includes habitats that are crucial for the conservation of at-risk wildlife species and for keeping common species common. This list of 20 habitats was developed using two detailed scientific assessments (the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species list and Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington), as well as the list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf

Do to protected predators, I would say the ungulates such as deer, elk, moose, etc. are the at-risk wildlife species at this time, but yet WDFW will not address the impacts of the illegally introduced wolves on these animals.

WDFW claim to care about protecting all wildlife, are they liars? Or have they changed into an environmental group?

Secure adequate funding for wildlife conservation

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will work closely with other state wildlife agencies and the nationwide Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to get the CWCS in the hands of state, federal and local decision-makers, business interests, the conservation community and the general public. In particular, WDFW will make copies of the CWCS available to members of Congress and federal agency administrators who will help provide the necessary funding to implement the Wildlife Action Plan.

Emphasize biodiversity conservation

The Washington Biodiversity Council is developing a proactive blueprint for Washington’s first-
ever biodiversity strategy. This 30-year vision
will include a strategy for educating the public about biodiversity and will incorporate statewide and ecoregional priorities and benchmarks for conservation of land and water (both fresh and marine).

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf

A timeline of Conservation Northwest
1989
Mitch Friedman founds the Greater Ecosystem Alliance (GEA) in Bellingham “to promote the protection of biological diversity through the conservation of large ecosystems, focusing on the greater Olympic, North and Central Cascades, and Columbia Mountain ecosystems.”

http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/milestones

Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity 

http://www.defenders.org/publications/the_u.s._and_the_convention_on_biological_diversity.pdf

Defenders of Wildlife

Working with States
Because the amount each state wildlife agency receives each year is not enough to meet all of its conservation goals, Defenders encouraged Congress to require each state to create a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan, also known as a State Wildlife Action Plan. http://www.defenders.org/habitat-conservation/defenders-action

From the December 2009 Idaho Observer: Explanation of the Biodiversity Treaty and the Wildlands Project

by Dr. Michael Coffman

As residents of the state of Idaho, we are particularly concerned with the red areas on the below map since our homes lie there and our Congressman Walt Minnick (D-ID) has set up a “Panhandle Collaborative” with local county commissioners and a myriad of environmental groups in order to devise a forest management plan that would eliminate human use of over two million acres of national forest land in North Idaho and Montana. Local Commissioner Cornel Rasor stated that our county seat is a member of ICLEI and “sustainable development” is on the move into North Idaho.

Read More@  http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm

Washington Associations of Land Trusts
http://www.walandtrusts.org/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.pdf

[WAcoyotehunter]

OK.... So you disagree with a "State level" ESA.... Is that what I am hearing?  So are you arguing that a species that is doing OK in one state should not be protected in another?  I guess i see the point about actual extinction, rather than localized extirpation.  But the problem with that is genetic variations.... Like the cougar in FL.... just because we have lots of them, they should still be listed and protected in FL. 

Just because MT has lots of sage grouse, they should be protected in WA.  they are in trouble here and need some help recovering. 
Having a few populations spread across the region certainly helps the genetics and sustainability of the whole species. 
Its the "all your eggs in one basket" idea... We are wise to keep all the species on the landscape whenever possible.
Of course, the idea of wolves leading to any extirpations is rediculous. Deer/elk are not going to be wiped off the landscape... Although declines are likely.... Wolves are going to have an impact, but your doomsday scenario is unlikely.

[wolfbait]

OK.... So you disagree with a "State level" ESA.... Is that what I am hearing?  So are you arguing that a species that is doing OK in one state should not be protected in another?  I guess i see the point about actual extinction, rather than localized extirpation.  But the problem with that is genetic variations.... Like the cougar in FL.... just because we have lots of them, they should still be listed and protected in FL. 

Just because MT has lots of sage grouse, they should be protected in WA.  they are in trouble here and need some help recovering. 
Having a few populations spread across the region certainly helps the genetics and sustainability of the whole species. 
Its the "all your eggs in one basket" idea... We are wise to keep all the species on the landscape whenever possible.
Of course, the idea of wolves leading to any extirpations is rediculous. Deer/elk are not going to be wiped off the landscape... Although declines are likely.... Wolves are going to have an impact, but your doomsday scenario is unlikely.

I watched a show last week about the cougars in FL, it looks a lot like these people are having the same problem we are with our wolves, with their game agency purposely underestimating the number of cougars. It showed where at first people didn't have a problem with cougars but after a few year the cats started coming in and killing their pets and livestock. The people of FL are getting the same line of BS we are, which is "people just need to learn to live with predators".

The state level ESA reeks of Wildlands Project implementation, didn't IDFG introduce the same idea? I think they called it the “Idaho Wildlife Summit.
”Poor Attendance at “Idaho Wildlife Summit” Reflects Citizen Mistrust of F&G Refusal to Manage Wildlife - See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/12/12/poor-attendance-at-idaho-wildlife-summit-reflects-citizen-mistrust-of-fg-refusal-to-manage-wildlife/#sthash.QryjllEs.dpuf

IDFG Director Moore Says The Agency Sponsored “Wildlife Summit” Was A Success…Idaho Sportsmen Feel It Is Just Another IDFG Lie!
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2012/09/06/idfg-director-moore-says-the-agency-sponsored-wildlife-summit-was-a-success-idaho-sportsmen-feel-it-is-just-another-idfg-lie/


TWIN FALLS, Idaho • Wildlife officials will spend as much as $100,000 over two years to poison ravens in three areas of Idaho, but officials don’t know whether that kill will permanently boost sage grouse populations as intended.

Ravens are a main predator of sage grouse eggs, and their numbers have increased throughout Idaho and the West, said Ann Moser, wildlife biologist for the state Department of Fish and Game.

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/poisoning-ravens-to-help-sage-grouse/article_4cd847e4-bbae-11e3-82ee-001a4bcf887a.html


More habitat is not the answer, controlling predators is the logical choice, but that doesn't help the excuse that more habitat is needed does it?  Your own simple concept: "think of the wilds as a cow pasture and deer or elk as your livestock... more and better grass+more acres=more area for cows"

That would work out fine if the wolves weren't killing all my cows, but since the wolves have killed 3/4 of my cows I now have plenty of grass, and not enough cows. I don't need more habitat I need to kill a bunch of wolves.   Easy enough right?

The article below is a joke, after 18 years the USFWS and state agencies are still playing the same game of grossly underestimating wolf populations. Even people who are not up on the wolf issue realize this info is total BS. It really shows the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction. The USFWS and state game agencies have never been held accountable for their fraudulent wolf counting, but the facts on the ground prove them liars.

Wolf populations in Northern Rockies states

The Associated Press April 4, 2014 Updated 16 hours ago

Gray wolf numbers in the Northern Rockies have declined about 6 percent from 2011, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Congress removed the wolves from the federal endangered species list in 2011. A state-by-state breakdown of year-end 2013 minimum wolf count and percentage change over two years:

-Idaho: 659 wolves; down 14 percent

-Montana: 627 wolves, down 4 percent

-Oregon: 61 wolves; up 110 percent(asterisk)

-Utah: 0 wolves; no change

-Washington: 38 wolves; up 46 percent(asterisk)

-Wyoming: 306 wolves, down 7 percent

-NORTHERN ROCKIES TOTAL: 1,691 wolves; down 6 percent

(asterisk)includes wolves only in eastern portion of state


Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/04/04/3117751/wolf-populations-in-northern-rockies.html?sp=/99/101/531/#storylink=cpy

[WAcoyotehunter]

I agree that the wolf numbers are flawed, the problem is they cannot accurately determine them without a survey. So they give the bare minimum number to be safe, but I think everyone knows it is higher.

[wolfbait]

I agree that the wolf numbers are flawed, the problem is they cannot accurately determine them without a survey. So they give the bare minimum number to be safe, but I think everyone knows it is higher.

Flawed? Fraud----Bare Minimum? You mean some BS number they pick out of the sky and go with, according to Mech wolf populations double each year. After 18 years and ungulates plummeting where wolves show up IDFG want people to believe there are only 659 wolves in Idaho? I bet we have that many in WA now.

What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery


Wolf Numbers Underestimated
There are so many variables involved in attempting to estimate the total number of wolves in a state that any such estimate is prone to large errors even with the best information available. But when the existence of every wolf that has not been part of a "collared" pack is ignored, any such estimate is suspect. For example, local residents reported several wolf packs in Boise County yet FWS had documented only two. When the Team finally documented the existence of three more packs there were 2-1/2 times as many wolf packs as had been recorded and a similar increase in the number of breeding pairs – indicated both by pups and by yearlings that were born in the prior year and survived. Although FWS goes back and adjusts the number of breeding pairs for the prior year when this evidence is documented, this system always results in initially underestimating both total wolves and breeding pairs recovery goals in all three states were met at least 2-3 years before then current FWS estimates said they were, yet the actual number of breeding pairs was not admitted and recorded until after the fact.


"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"
In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the "key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public." Issue number 6 stated, "Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important tothe recovery of viable wolf populations. "At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this dayforward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild). "We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached." (emphasis added)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website … report.pdf

[idahohuntr]

I watched a show last week about the cougars in FL, it looks a lot like these people are having the same problem we are with our wolves, with their game agency purposely underestimating the number of cougars.

Purposely biasing count data is not the same thing as having uncertainty in a population estimate.  I hope we can all agree estimating the number of wolves, particularly in dense forest habitats like NE Wa and N. Idaho and NW Montana is extremely difficult.

If you have evidence of how an agency is intentionally underreporting wolf numbers please post it.  Simply stating you think (or some wolf biogist at a University 2000 miles away) thinks the number of wolves is xxxx is not a valid or useful critique.  All the state agencies provide details, methods, and wolf number estimates in publicly available technical reports.  Your continued blabbering about how wolves are being miscounted because some armchair biologist says the growth rate should be xx% is laughable and only demonstrates your extraordinary ignorance on the subject of estimating abundance of wildlife. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

  the counts are tough... They have to be able to make a number that they can defend.  The counts that are thrown around on here are pretty wild and could NEVER be defended.  The state uses collar data to fly an area and get their eyes on the wolves.  That's the best way to count and it is expensive.  Estimates are not useful for delisting... Actual counts are needed

[wolfbait]

I watched a show last week about the cougars in FL, it looks a lot like these people are having the same problem we are with our wolves, with their game agency purposely underestimating the number of cougars.

Purposely biasing count data is not the same thing as having uncertainty in a population estimate.  I hope we can all agree estimating the number of wolves, particularly in dense forest habitats like NE Wa and N. Idaho and NW Montana is extremely difficult.

If you have evidence of how an agency is intentionally underreporting wolf numbers please post it.  Simply stating you think (or some wolf biogist at a University 2000 miles away) thinks the number of wolves is xxxx is not a valid or useful critique.  All the state agencies provide details, methods, and wolf number estimates in publicly available technical reports.  Your continued blabbering about how wolves are being miscounted because some armchair biologist says the growth rate should be xx% is laughable and only demonstrates your extraordinary ignorance on the subject of estimating abundance of wildlife.

"All the state agencies provide details, methods, and wolf number estimates in publicly available technical reports"

While Washington’s wolf population increased by at least one last year, officials of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife say the number of cattle that were killed decreased.

Department carnivore section manager Donny Martorello told the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission on Saturday the estimated number of wolves and wolf packs has increased. Last year, the department estimated 51 to 101 wolves were in the state. This year, the minimum increased to 52, based on the number of wolves seen by department staff.

“I do believe the number is higher, but we don’t know exactly by how much,” Martorello said. “We had good production this last year in a number of packs.” 
- See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20140310/ARTICLE/140319987/#sthash.rgb5x5rN.dpuf

So the WDFW staff only saw one more wolf last year?

Which armchair biologist are you talking about ID? Are you talking about Mech?

[wolfbait]

the counts are tough... They have to be able to make a number that they can defend.  The counts that are thrown around on here are pretty wild and could NEVER be defended.  The state uses collar data to fly an area and get their eyes on the wolves.  That's the best way to count and it is expensive.  Estimates are not useful for delisting... Actual counts are needed

They have to be able to Make a number that they can defend? And you think they have been doing a great job at making up their wolf numbers? WDFW staff saw one more wolf?  Could there be two or three more wolves? geeze thats sound real accurate.

"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"
In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the "key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public." Issue number 6 stated, "Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important tothe recovery of viable wolf populations. "At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this dayforward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild). "We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached." (emphasis added)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website … report.pdf

[WAcoyotehunter]

Its pretty clear that you don't have a clue about how they are working on wolf issues.  They need to be able to DEFEND and justify any number they put out.  So, the wdfw cannot say there are 500+ wolves in WA because a guy on an internet forum says its true.... They have to use science and accurate data.

[idahohuntr]

“I do believe the number is higher, but we don’t know exactly by how much,” Martorello said. “We had good production this last year in a number of packs.” 


So the WDFW staff only saw one more wolf last year?

Look at your own darn quote above    Yes, they physically observed only one more wolf but Martorello states he believes the number is HIGHER...that is part of the uncertainty in estimating animal abundance.  "I believe the number is higher" does not sound at all like something someone would say if they were trying to underreport wolf numbers...how can you not see that?

Which armchair biologist are you talking about ID? Are you talking about Mech?

Any biologist not directly involved in counting wolves in Washington, Idaho, Montana etc. is who I am talking about.  Monday morning quarterbacks are dime a dozen.  I'm gonna stick with numbers/estimates/trends from the guys actually collecting the data...basically, I am saying I will take Martorello's estimates for wolf numbers in WA far more seriously than some guy sitting in his ivory tower academic office...or a bar stool in Stevens County for that matter.   

[wolfbait]

Its pretty clear that you don't have a clue about how they are working on wolf issues.  They need to be able to DEFEND and justify any number they put out.  So, the wdfw cannot say there are 500+ wolves in WA because a guy on an internet forum says its true.... They have to use science and accurate data.

So they add one more wolf

I think it would be impossible to get an accurate count of wolves, but refusing to confirm known wolf packs does not help their count, wouldn't you agree?

[Jonathan_S]

...or a bar stool in Stevens County for that matter.