The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves

[idahohuntr]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

There are not 3 different answers.  USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC.  The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial.  Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from.  If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population.  What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves 

Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources.  Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track.  That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?

This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things.  Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.

Let me see if I can wade through this ....

So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?

I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! 

The wolves captured near twisp in 2008 had a genetic profile most similar to wolves found in S.C. BC 

I would stick with the USFWS report...I do not consider CNW website posts and the Methow Valley News as the best source for scientific information on the genetic analyses of wild animals.  The quotes about wolves coming down from Northern BC...how easy is it to distinguish N. BC from SC BC? I don't know...is it important...probably not.  The issue is: were these wolves from the NRM DPS or from BC...thats whats important and the answer was clear...they are from BC.  Again, I think you don't understand the genetic analyses very well and that is making it difficult for you to correctly interpret what is actually being reported...ESPECIALLY when you are comparing a scientific summary from USFWS to the gossip columns on CNW and a small town newspaper.  Also, none of the reports provide certainty levels...so while folks are drawn to the "where did the wolves come from" the scientists report that as a probability (think in terms of drawing a tag  )...is it 85% probability they came from SC BC or was the probability 15% but that is the most likely source from the genetic database they had to draw from?

I've probably not cleared this up for you because I'm  not a professional geneticist, but I don't see any lying or inconsistency here.  Furthermore, this whole "where did the wolves come from" is rooted in this bs about wolves being transplanted...folks who believe WDFW and USFWS are committing serious felonies and illegaly transplanting wolves around washington probably do not have the cognitive skills to understand the genetics work that is being done. 

[idahohuntr]

One other quick note...you guys act like you've found a smoking gun because CNW, the Methow Valley News, and the USFWS are not lock-step on a wolf issue    I'm shocked! 

[mountainman]

 :)Obviously, you lack the critical thinking skills, as many do, to trust what is put forth as fact. Go ahead and believe what those in authority tell you is factual. But let those who use common reasoning skills coupled with common sense, believe what we may. Truthfull thinkers seem to always be labeled conspiratists. .that's ok with me..my head is out of the sand on many issues. Believe what your are fed, no worry to me, or most on here. Ready for your sarcastic comments now..type away guys...

[idahohuntr]

But wouldn't you agree the most sensible place for wolves found in Twisp in 2008 to come from would be SC BC?  I've got no problem with critically evaluating data and observations put forth by scientists...but logic seems to be prevailing here 

[bearpaw]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

There are not 3 different answers.  USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC.  The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial.  Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from.  If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population.  What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves 

Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources.  Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track.  That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?

This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things.  Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.

Let me see if I can wade through this ....

So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?

I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! 

The wolves captured near twisp in 2008 had a genetic profile most similar to wolves found in S.C. BC 

I would stick with the USFWS report...I do not consider CNW website posts and the Methow Valley News as the best source for scientific information on the genetic analyses of wild animals.  The quotes about wolves coming down from Northern BC...how easy is it to distinguish N. BC from SC BC? I don't know...is it important...probably not.  The issue is: were these wolves from the NRM DPS or from BC...thats whats important and the answer was clear...they are from BC.  Again, I think you don't understand the genetic analyses very well and that is making it difficult for you to correctly interpret what is actually being reported...ESPECIALLY when you are comparing a scientific summary from USFWS to the gossip columns on CNW and a small town newspaper.  Also, none of the reports provide certainty levels...so while folks are drawn to the "where did the wolves come from" the scientists report that as a probability (think in terms of drawing a tag  )...is it 85% probability they came from SC BC or was the probability 15% but that is the most likely source from the genetic database they had to draw from?

I've probably not cleared this up for you because I'm  not a professional geneticist, but I don't see any lying or inconsistency here.  Furthermore, this whole "where did the wolves come from" is rooted in this bs about wolves being transplanted...folks who believe WDFW and USFWS are committing serious felonies and illegaly transplanting wolves around washington probably do not have the cognitive skills to understand the genetics work that is being done. 

I don't really care where the wolves came from at this point, they are here, they are multiplying, I simply want reasonable management to happen. I don't know anything about genetics, don't claim to, like most citizens I rely on others (mostly the agencies) for accurate information. Wolfbait posted some info that certainly raises questions. Your replies have added to the questions raised.

I am surprised that you didn't support the reported statements by WDFW (Fitkin)!

Feel free to unload your sarcasm and profanity on me too!

[idahohuntr]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

There are not 3 different answers.  USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC.  The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial.  Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from.  If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population.  What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves 

Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources.  Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track.  That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?

This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things.  Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.

Let me see if I can wade through this ....

So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?

I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! 

The wolves captured near twisp in 2008 had a genetic profile most similar to wolves found in S.C. BC 

I would stick with the USFWS report...I do not consider CNW website posts and the Methow Valley News as the best source for scientific information on the genetic analyses of wild animals.  The quotes about wolves coming down from Northern BC...how easy is it to distinguish N. BC from SC BC? I don't know...is it important...probably not.  The issue is: were these wolves from the NRM DPS or from BC...thats whats important and the answer was clear...they are from BC.  Again, I think you don't understand the genetic analyses very well and that is making it difficult for you to correctly interpret what is actually being reported...ESPECIALLY when you are comparing a scientific summary from USFWS to the gossip columns on CNW and a small town newspaper.  Also, none of the reports provide certainty levels...so while folks are drawn to the "where did the wolves come from" the scientists report that as a probability (think in terms of drawing a tag  )...is it 85% probability they came from SC BC or was the probability 15% but that is the most likely source from the genetic database they had to draw from?

I've probably not cleared this up for you because I'm  not a professional geneticist, but I don't see any lying or inconsistency here.  Furthermore, this whole "where did the wolves come from" is rooted in this bs about wolves being transplanted...folks who believe WDFW and USFWS are committing serious felonies and illegaly transplanting wolves around washington probably do not have the cognitive skills to understand the genetics work that is being done. 

Feel free to unload your sarcasm and profanity on me too!

Paint yourself as a victim if you want.  There's plenty of sarcasm on all sides and you will be hard pressed to find profanity from me.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[bearpaw]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

There are not 3 different answers.  USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC.  The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial.  Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from.  If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population.  What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves 

Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources.  Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track.  That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?

This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things.  Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.

Let me see if I can wade through this ....

So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?

I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! 

The wolves captured near twisp in 2008 had a genetic profile most similar to wolves found in S.C. BC 

I would stick with the USFWS report...I do not consider CNW website posts and the Methow Valley News as the best source for scientific information on the genetic analyses of wild animals.  The quotes about wolves coming down from Northern BC...how easy is it to distinguish N. BC from SC BC? I don't know...is it important...probably not.  The issue is: were these wolves from the NRM DPS or from BC...thats whats important and the answer was clear...they are from BC.  Again, I think you don't understand the genetic analyses very well and that is making it difficult for you to correctly interpret what is actually being reported...ESPECIALLY when you are comparing a scientific summary from USFWS to the gossip columns on CNW and a small town newspaper.  Also, none of the reports provide certainty levels...so while folks are drawn to the "where did the wolves come from" the scientists report that as a probability (think in terms of drawing a tag  )...is it 85% probability they came from SC BC or was the probability 15% but that is the most likely source from the genetic database they had to draw from?

I've probably not cleared this up for you because I'm  not a professional geneticist, but I don't see any lying or inconsistency here.  Furthermore, this whole "where did the wolves come from" is rooted in this bs about wolves being transplanted...folks who believe WDFW and USFWS are committing serious felonies and illegaly transplanting wolves around washington probably do not have the cognitive skills to understand the genetics work that is being done. 

Feel free to unload your sarcasm and profanity on me too!

Paint yourself as a victim if you want.  There's plenty of sarcasm on all sides and you will be hard pressed to find profanity from me.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Many members have cleaned up their posts but your continued sarcasm, name calling, etc. isn't helping, it would simply be nice if you would clean it up a bit too. Thanks

[bearpaw]

No smoking gun, but the WDFW News Release says: "the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations". I looked further through WDFW New Releases and did not see where WDFW changed their statement regarding the origin of the wolves.

For the record, at this point it appears wolfbait was actually correct that WDFW and USFWS are claiming different origins of the pack. So there are certainly questions regarding either the claims or the validity of the DNA evidence of where this pack originated.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
NEWS RELEASE
July 23, 2008
Contact: Harriet Allen, (360) 902-2694

Preliminary results from additional genetic testing indicate the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations. More comprehensive testing is currently being conducted to determine more specific information.

http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.

[timberfaller]

Can't contain myself Where did they come from or who put the wolves up Libby Cr. in the late 70's??    Where did they come from or who put the wolves in black Pine basin in the mid 80's??

Like 2008 is something new 

 

[coyotestalker22250]

The bottom line is we need a management plan soon. The problem is we won't get one until they move into Seattle and chew on someone's little sissy dog or their kid!

[idahohuntr]

No smoking gun, but the WDFW News Release says: "the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations". I looked further through WDFW New Releases and did not see where WDFW changed their statement regarding the origin of the wolves.

For the record, at this point it appears wolfbait was actually correct that WDFW and USFWS are claiming different origins of the pack. So there are certainly questions regarding either the claims or the validity of the DNA evidence of where this pack originated.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
NEWS RELEASE
July 23, 2008
Contact: Harriet Allen, (360) 902-2694

Preliminary results from additional genetic testing indicate the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations. More comprehensive testing is currently being conducted to determine more specific information.

http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.

This is where I disagree.  The genetic method for assigning region or population of origin is not equivalent to getting a dna sample from a human and finding a "match" at the crime scene a la CSI.  Rather, it is a probabilistic measure of how similar the genotype of one animal is to other sub-populations.  Basically, they have a DNA "database" and they are not looking for a "match"...they are saying what population in our database is closest to the sample we collected.  The USFWS report that was linked indicated S.C. BC.  If another sample somebody assigned it to Northern BC that is not really inconsistent...wolves migrate large distances and this type of genetic analysis is not some fool proof evaluation like determining whether blood from this guy matches blood at a crime scene....which can be done with almost absolute certainty.

Not to mention, the news releases are dumbed down to an 8th grade or less reading level so they can be interpreted by the general public with ease...so if you want to get into specifics to debate the origin of wolves from a pack in say Twisp we need to dig up the actual analyses and not rely on watered down news clips where a journalist and not a scientist makes the call on what exactly gets said.

But as you mentioned earlier...I don't think this is really even an issue at this point.  Wolves are here and they are not going anywhere.  A poll by WDFW showed little support for general wolf hunting seasons (~30% support) and if there are cases where ungulate herds were decreasing because of wolves it was about 50/50 whether wolf control measures should be taken to protect ungulates.  We hunters have to do a better job showing the non-hunting voters in this state that we are reasonable, balanced, informed folks who are interested in conserving all of washingtons wildlife.  There is no doubt that wolf management/wolf hunting will ultimately end up on the ballot box in this state and it will make the hound/bait stuff look like a pillow fight.  Claiming conspiracy after conspiracy and attacking wdfw will not help us, and I can't say it enough: WDFW IS OUR BIGGEST ALLY...especially since we will be asking the public to trust that wdfw will manage their wolves like all the other wildlife in this state.

[villageidiot]

The people with skin in the game should have most of the say about how wolves are managed.  The livestock owners and hunters most certainly do not vote 50/50 to restore wolves.  I would venture to guess it would come in more like 98/2 against reintroducing wolves among the ranchers and hunters.
  Unfortunately the folks making the biggest sacrafices only have one vote .

[wolfbait]

Can WDFW and the USFWS have it both ways? Both agencies use DNA testing to confirm wolf packs, decide if it is a wolf, and to tell what wolf went where, what wolf came from which pack etc.. Now we have the USFWS, WDFW, and Conservation Northwest with conflicting DNA reports. Some might say that CNW don't count, but before and since 2008 CNW and WDFW have worked hand in hand confirming wolf packs etc.

So my question is can the USFWS, WDFW and CNW manipulate or lie about DNA testing to fit their narrative? It would seem the narrative that all three agencies are trying to achieve is to stay completely away from the wolves in ID, MT and WY:

“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”

By the way what is an unnatural migration? or unnatural colonization?
 

[wolfbait]

No smoking gun, but the WDFW News Release says: "the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations". I looked further through WDFW New Releases and did not see where WDFW changed their statement regarding the origin of the wolves.

For the record, at this point it appears wolfbait was actually correct that WDFW and USFWS are claiming different origins of the pack. So there are certainly questions regarding either the claims or the validity of the DNA evidence of where this pack originated.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
NEWS RELEASE
July 23, 2008
Contact: Harriet Allen, (360) 902-2694

Preliminary results from additional genetic testing indicate the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations. More comprehensive testing is currently being conducted to determine more specific information.

http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.

This is where I disagree.  The genetic method for assigning region or population of origin is not equivalent to getting a dna sample from a human and finding a "match" at the crime scene a la CSI.  Rather, it is a probabilistic measure of how similar the genotype of one animal is to other sub-populations.  Basically, they have a DNA "database" and they are not looking for a "match"...they are saying what population in our database is closest to the sample we collected.  The USFWS report that was linked indicated S.C. BC.  If another sample somebody assigned it to Northern BC that is not really inconsistent...wolves migrate large distances and this type of genetic analysis is not some fool proof evaluation like determining whether blood from this guy matches blood at a crime scene....which can be done with almost absolute certainty.

Not to mention, the news releases are dumbed down to an 8th grade or less reading level so they can be interpreted by the general public with ease...so if you want to get into specifics to debate the origin of wolves from a pack in say Twisp we need to dig up the actual analyses and not rely on watered down news clips where a journalist and not a scientist makes the call on what exactly gets said.

But as you mentioned earlier...I don't think this is really even an issue at this point.  Wolves are here and they are not going anywhere.  A poll by WDFW showed little support for general wolf hunting seasons (~30% support) and if there are cases where ungulate herds were decreasing because of wolves it was about 50/50 whether wolf control measures should be taken to protect ungulates.  We hunters have to do a better job showing the non-hunting voters in this state that we are reasonable, balanced, informed folks who are interested in conserving all of washingtons wildlife.  There is no doubt that wolf management/wolf hunting will ultimately end up on the ballot box in this state and it will make the hound/bait stuff look like a pillow fight.  Claiming conspiracy after conspiracy and attacking wdfw will not help us, and I can't say it enough: WDFW IS OUR BIGGEST ALLY...especially since we will be asking the public to trust that wdfw will manage their wolves like all the other wildlife in this state.

I bet if WDFW took their polls where they have dumped wolves on rural people, the outcome would be quite a bit different. To include people who haven't had to deal with wolves killing their livestock, dogs and seeing the wolf killed deer, people who believe everything WDFW tells them about the wolves, in other wards  the brainwashed, I'm sure the polls will favor WDFandWolves.

Now that WDFW, USFWS and CNW have been caught lying about DNA testing on the Lookout pack, you all of a sudden don't want to rely on the tests? The tests are just too complicated for normal people, only extra smart people at WDFW can figure out DNA tests? You crack me up Idaho-H.

"We hunters have to do a better job showing the non-hunting voters in this state that we are reasonable, balanced, informed folks who are interested in conserving all of washingtons wildlife.  There is no doubt that wolf management/wolf hunting will ultimately end up on the ballot box in this state and it will make the hound/bait stuff look like a pillow fight.  Claiming conspiracy after conspiracy and attacking wdfw will not help us, and I can't say it enough: WDFW IS OUR BIGGEST ALLY...especially since we will be asking the public to trust that wdfw will manage their wolves like all the other wildlife in this state".

We hunters need to keep doing the same thing we have been doing, educating the public about the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction and how the same corruption is now being used in states that wolves suddenly show up in. Telling the truth is not conspiracies as the pro-wolf crown would like everyone to believe. What the pro-wolf crowd would like is, for everyone to just shut up and wait patently for delisting, which won't happen until the USFWS and WDFW figure there are enough wolves in WA to do maximum damage.

You say WDFW is our biggest ally, are we talking about the same outfit that is protecting predators instead of controlling them? The same outfit that appointed the wolf working group stacked with pro-wolfers? The agency that gave WA the most liberal wolf plan created to this date, in a state with a larger population of people, smaller herds, and less public land? The same WDFW that lied about livestock killed by wolves, and that claim in order to get Hydatid disease people must eat wolf scat? And also said when wolves impacts on the ungulates is finally noticed hunting will be limited in order to feed the wolves? The same outfit that repeats over and over that the wolves naturally migrated, when rural folks know the wolves were planted and are still being released. I guess you must have forgotten these aspects of WDFW? I sure can't see where WDFW are our ally.

WDFW have Defenders of Wildlife on their web site, and they work hand in hand with Conservation Northwest confirming wolves etc., environmentalists that will sue to keep wolves on the ESA. I don't see BearPaw Outfitters on WDFW's site or any other outfitters which would have a better chance of convincing me that WDFW were our ally, then say a bunch of wolf promoting environmentalists.

WDFW reminds me of the recent VA scandal in many ways. The guy on top claims to know nothing and all the flunkies below are  protecting wolves with lies and more fraud. Just another day in wolf-land.

[idahohuntr]

Your rant is not logical. There are no "lies" about DNA testing.  Just because you don't understand something does not mean it is a "lie".  And again...what the heck does it matter?  The wolves moved in to washington from multiple places...Idaho, Montana, BC etc. Wolves have large home ranges and migrate long distances so it is not at all surprising that as populations grow they disperse further and further. 

The genetic evaluations try to assign a region of origin but I don't see why we should care that much about this point...if you want to dwell on it though I suggest you go read up on genetic assignment techniques so that you can better understand the uncertainty associated with grabbing a dna sample from a wild, highly migratory animal and then trying to assign it back to a sub-group.  There is not the level of certainty most folks are familiar with when it comes to dna testing where you are trying to determine if one sample is an identical match to another sample.  Uncertainty in science is nothing new and yet you seem to be claiming this uncertainty shows weakness or conspiracy...all it does is demonstrate how little you understand about scientific process.  This is precisely why we have professional scientists manage our wildlife.

Yes, WDFW is our biggest ally when it comes to managing wildlife.  Does it mean they do everything we want? No.  But they are responsible for managing wildlife and hunting...if you are a hunter they are your ally.  Plain and simple. 

Find ways to work with them to improve management, don't just whine and snivel about how horrible they are.  There are a lot of folks who contribute a lot to help provide direction/advice/input on how wdfw can better serve sportsmen and it would be nice if you would join their ranks and do so without constantly trying to denigrate wdfw staff.