Lawsuit: Timber sale threatens den where Oregon's wandering wolf has settled to

[jackelope]

I didn't run to the mods with that personal attack,  I didn't hit the Report to moderator button like what's been going on with wolfbait.  Some of you guys have really been trying hard to bait him into a ban. 
I've never reported anything to any moderator...I don't even know how one would go about such a thing.  And I don't want wolfbait banned...if he's banned I won't be able to teach him anything 

In my experience those with your line of thinking do look down on us uneducated neanderthals and many comments from you suggest rural folks need more education so they can understand what you know.  It's evident that you look down your nose at rural living folks. 
I've never made any comment about someones education level.  I have talked about the need to educate various user groups, but I'm not talking academics when I say that...I mean we need to have information etc. made available to these most likely intelligent folks so they better understand whatever the topic issue is.  I know plenty of Ph.D's that are dumber than a wheelbarrow...I know plenty of folks with GED's who are far more intelligent than a whole lot of folks, myself included.  Last...I have always lived in rural areas...in another year or so I will be back to full time rural living...thank goodness, because I hate living in town!  If you knew my background and where I grew up, you would surely know that I do not look down my nose at rural living folks...

Now, since this thread has already been so hi-jacked, in large part because of me, I want to add one more thought.  While I have great respect for Jackelope, I disagree with his assessment on participation/comments on these threads.  On controversial topics that will undoubtedly result in disagreement, a large percentage of folks are conflict averse and they just aren't going to participate and that is understandable.  They don't like conflict and don't want to engage.  Thats fine.  I'm not sure some of the more controversial threads its necessarily better or more productive to have every one weigh in...if 6 or 8 people are covering all sides of an issue adequately I think it usually does justice to the topic. 

I completely agree the personal attacks are the biggest detriment to these threads and what cause them to be de-railed...however, disagreement should be expected and encouraged.  If someone points out why they think you are wrong, incorrect, what you are not considering etc. that is not a personal attack...that is just part of a logical discussion when there are multiple "sides" or opinions on a topic.  Im far more guilty of being blunt than I am of intentionally trying to make any of these issues "personal"...Without people willing to step up and say things that aren't always popular with the "crowd" I think a lot of these discussions would be boring and provide little value or information to folks who read but don't post a lot.   

Either way, as has been hashed out repeatedly...many of us, myself included, need to watch to make sure we are not going after the person(s) posting...rather we should all focus on what they post and whether it is logical, defensible, achieves objectives and policies we support etc.  There is a clear line IMO between personal attacks and focusing on the issue/problem, and if you are on the side of the line that focuses on the problem/issue then I see no reason to water down what you like/don't like/think/know about whatever that topic happens to be.

I see your point regarding my view on this but I wonder.....how many threads do we need to have break down and end up with the same guys bickering back and forth about the same old thing?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I agree with some comments made by Idahohntr and by jackelope. The wolf topics and all other topics should provide for a free exchange of information and viewpoints, however, some comments are rude, insulting, or there is name calling. I have allowed myself to make less than desirable comments at times in the past and I regret allowing that to happen as that may have fueled this trend. I will try to do a better job of leading by example in the future. Because wolves are such a polarizing issue, there will be some who comment more and many who may not comment, the key point, if we all try to refrain from the personal attacks and insults we will have more friendly and inviting discussions. The tone of the discussion should not deter participants, it should invite greater participation.

.....and hopefully accomplish something.
 

[bobcat]

This theory that the introduced wolves were a different species than the native wolves of this state sure seems to come up a lot.

From the WDFW website:

Aren’t the wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone non-native or different from earlier wolves?
No. There is no factual basis to the belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states.

Wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data demonstrates that the wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mixed with wolves from Idaho and Montana, along with those from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information illustrates that wolves form a single population across the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and southern Canada.

Recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in reintroductions into Yellowstone.

[wolfbait]

actually


When WDFW adopts a reasonable wolf plan
When WDFW kicks CNW to the curb
When WDFW uses uncorrupted science to manage game herds

When lobbyists no longer control WDFW......then I'll relax.

actually

When WDFW explain why they have released wolves throughout WA and then pretended the wolves migrated/are migrating
When WDFW start controlling predators instead of protecting them
When tree huggers quit petitioning WDFW to stop lethal control measures.
When wolf huggers quit blaming cattle ranchers for wolves killing cattle
When WDFW adopts a reasonable wolf plan
When WDFW kicks CNW to the curb
When WDFW uses uncorrupted science to manage game herds

When lobbyists no longer control WDFW......then I'll relax.

[wolfbait]

This theory that the introduced wolves were a different species than the native wolves of this state sure seems to come up a lot.

From the WDFW website:

Aren’t the wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone non-native or different from earlier wolves?
No. There is no factual basis to the belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states.

Wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data demonstrates that the wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mixed with wolves from Idaho and Montana, along with those from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information illustrates that wolves form a single population across the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and southern Canada.

Recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in reintroductions into Yellowstone.

Conservation groups sue to force federal decision on protections of rare Alaska wolves

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Three conservation groups have sued to force a federal agency to decide whether a rare Alaska wolf should be listed as endangered.

A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Alexander Archipelago wolves, a subspecies of gray wolves that lives in old-growth forest of southeast Alaska, is 18 months overdue, said Rebecca Noblin, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

The center, Greenpeace and The Boat Company, a nonprofit educational organization that offers eco-cruises in southeast Alaska, sued Tuesday in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Noblin called the situation for the wolves precarious. The U.S. Forest Service is planning additional timber sales on islands inhabited by the wolves. The groups want the Fish and Wildlife Service to make a decision before more habitat is lost.

"We're concerned that the situation is getting worse for the wolves while the agency sits on its hands," she said.

Agency spokeswoman Andrea Medeiros could not be immediately reached Tuesday for comment.

The wolves den in the root systems of large trees and hunt Sitka black-tailed deer, which depend on high-quality, old forests. They are genetically distinct from other wolves in the Tongass National Forest.

Greenpeace and the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to list the wolves as endangered in August 2011 because of habitat loss from logging. Large-scale logging poses a threat because it fragments low-elevation forests that reduce carrying capacity for deer, according to the groups. Roads that accompany logging lead to unsustainable legal and illegal hunting and trapping, the groups say.

The number of wolves on Prince of Wales Island, where the Forest Service is considering the 9.4-square mile Big Thorne timber sale, has declined since the submission of the petition, according to the groups. David Pearson, a former state research biologist, counted 45 to 50 wolves in the Big Thorne timber sale area in the mid-1990s, but last year he could find evidence of only six or seven wolves, according to the groups.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/5a719de9e0bc47aabffdd12a8bc27f2b/AK--Alexander-Archipelago-Wolves



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


  I guess it depends on the Agenda

[idahohuntr]

This theory that the introduced wolves were a different species than the native wolves of this state sure seems to come up a lot.

Yes, and it is detrimental to hunters who want wolves off the endangered species list to try and argue in favor of this false idea that these are separate subspecies/species of wolves.  The data we have does not support this notion that these are different wolves from a genetic/subspecies etc. standpoint.  There may be slightly different physical features...animals from more northern latitudes tend to have larger bodies (whether its moose, deer, wolves...whatever) but they are not a different species/subspecies.

More importantly though, the enviro groups that want to keep wolves listed are certainly going to argue that every pack of wolves is genetically distinct if they can.  Why?  Because under ESA species can be listed down to the subspecies/MPG level...so it is easier to keep wolves listed if they are all designated as genetically distinct....a bunch of small, genetically different (and separately listed) group of wolves is much easier to keep on ESA than if we follow good science and just agree that a gray wolf is a gray wolf and that we've got a few thousand of them in the northern rocky mountain states and so the probability of extinction is very low.     

Hunters who want wolves de-listed and managed more effectively are essentially shooting themselves in the foot when they push this "different wolves" theory.

[wolfbait]

This theory that the introduced wolves were a different species than the native wolves of this state sure seems to come up a lot.

Yes, and it is detrimental to hunters who want wolves off the endangered species list to try and argue in favor of this false idea that these are separate subspecies/species of wolves.  The data we have does not support this notion that these are different wolves from a genetic/subspecies etc. standpoint.  There may be slightly different physical features...animals from more northern latitudes tend to have larger bodies (whether its moose, deer, wolves...whatever) but they are not a different species/subspecies.

More importantly though, the enviro groups that want to keep wolves listed are certainly going to argue that every pack of wolves is genetically distinct if they can.  Why?  Because under ESA species can be listed down to the subspecies/MPG level...so it is easier to keep wolves listed if they are all designated as genetically distinct....a bunch of small, genetically different (and separately listed) group of wolves is much easier to keep on ESA than if we follow good science and just agree that a gray wolf is a gray wolf and that we've got a few thousand of them in the northern rocky mountain states and so the probability of extinction is very low.     

Hunters who want wolves de-listed and managed more effectively are essentially shooting themselves in the foot when they push this "different wolves" theory.

"Hunters who want wolves de-listed and managed more effectively are essentially shooting themselves in the foot when they push this "different wolves" theory."

Didn't the USFWS say a wolf was a wolf in order to introduce them in the lower 48? We know that their were native wolves in WA, MT, WY, and Idaho that were different then the wolves that the USFWS introduced. So telling the truth is hurting people who say the wolves that the USFWS introduced were not the wolves that these states originally had? I believe what the USFWS did, releasing wolves on top another species was illegal. We already know they broke the Lacey Act when they introduced them into Idaho.

[bobcat]

Wolfbait,  can you prove that the wolves in this state from 100 years ago are a different species than the wolves that are here today?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

[wolfbait]

Wolfbait,  can you prove that the wolves in this state from 100 years ago are a different species than the wolves that are here today?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

Interesting read.

DNA Studies – Smaller Native Wolves Existed in

Northern Rockies before Canadian Wolf Transplant

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2048%20April%202012-Native%20wolves.pdf

[villageidiot]

Thank goodness there are still a few brave men that are very accurate shots and will help our wolf problem.  Our country was formed by the same type of mindset one has to have to solve this wolf fiasco.
  To sit on ones hands and let the government people make a decision for us is definitely sheeple.  When the wolf lovers are convinced their precious vermin are being killed and the population reduced, then and only then will they agree to some sound management of wolves.
  If we give in on this then they will continue to cram wolves down our throats.  I do believe that if they actually knew the exact numbers killed by SSS they would be willing to sit down for a constructive plan.

[idahohuntr]

Interesting read.

DNA Studies – Smaller Native Wolves Existed in
Northern Rockies before Canadian Wolf Transplant

Yes, interesting might be a good way to describe it.  I'm unsure why you are pushing the same deceptive information as the anti-hunting organizations?  Don't you want wolves de-listed?  Wolves are highly migratory and there is no migration barrier between wolves of upper B.C/Alberta and Idaho/Washington etc.  There are lots of gray wolves in the northern rocky mountain states, they are the same wolves reintroduced into Idaho and WY and to suggest otherwise really fits the anti-hunting agenda quite well.  Can't we agree that WDFW/USFWS has got this one right?

Thank goodness Too bad there are still a few brave mencowardly poachers that are very accurate shots and will help exacerbate our wolf problem.

Fixed it for ya.

When the wolf lovers are convinced their precious vermin are being killed and the population reduced, then and only then will they agree to some sound management of wolves.  I do believe that if they actually knew the exact numbers killed by SSS they would be willing to sit down for a constructive plan.

I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming.  If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington.  It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters.  It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do.  If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime.  I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!   

[KFhunter]

Once it's to that point all is lost Idahohntr, frankly I think it's there already.

You and I both have lost,  me for aggressive management and you for the current wolf plan and public acceptance.

Neither is likely to happen.

[Romulus1297]

Reciprocating saw to our ankles would be fair to people caught shooting wolfs 

[WAcoyotehunter]

I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming.  If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington.  It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters.  It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do.  If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime.  I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!   

Yep... things have gotten SOOO  MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow.  The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....

[wolfbait]

I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming.  If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington.  It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters.  It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do.  If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime.  I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!   

Yep... things have gotten SOOO  MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow.  The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....

There will never be a shortage of wolves in WA, look at the bogus wolf plan, WDFW will just keep dumping more wolves where they feel they are needed.

"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.

He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf

[AspenBud]

I disagree...this is not Idaho or Wyoming.  If it becomes clear that hunters or ranchers are poaching, then it vindicates the need for further protection and safeguard in Washington.  It will not make the anti-'s compromise and it would really be a turn off to the folks with actual power as well as non-hunting voters.  It diminishes the hunter/conservation link, it undermines WDFW's ability to manage wolves...Its about the worst thing we could do.  If anything, penalties need to be increased for wolf poaching...lifetime hunting ban, huge fines, mandatory jail time, loss of truck/guns etc...no more slaps on the wrist...make the penalties so severe that people think real, real hard before committing such a crime.  I really dislike some wildlife laws in WA because they are technicalities and serve no biological/management purpose...but when it comes to flagrant violations and blatant poaching...well, a poacher is a poacher and I hope they throw the book at them!   

Yep... things have gotten SOOO  MUCH better around here since the Whites killed the wolves in the Methow.  The Anti hunters really got a strong message and backed off after that deal.....

There will never be a shortage of wolves in WA, look at the bogus wolf plan, WDFW will just keep dumping more wolves where they feel they are needed.

"My father was a member of the Wyoming House of Representatives for 24 years. He always fought against granting general fund moneys to the Game & Fish Department, arguing that the moment any State does so, it would destroy our game and fish populations.

He explained that if their funding was dependent upon the hunting and fishing industries, they would manage and protect our wildlife. If, on the other hand, the Game & Fish Departments received general funding, they would immediately turn towards the radical "enviro" anti- hunting, anti-management, anti-protection, pro-predator mentality."

http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No.%20%2033%20%20Mar%202009-%20%20Anything%20but%20Science.pdf

But again, you're in Washington, not Idaho or Wyoming. You have to be able to convince the overall population and right now that general population rather loudly says they either want wolves or just don't have enough of an opinion on the matter to care.

I think some of you are missing the point. At some point this issue may well come to a state wide vote and it doesn't take a lot of looking around to realize how people would vote on an initiative. They will tell WDFW what they want it to do and cram it down your throat. Every poached wolf will ensure that.

This is Lefty land, if you think illegally blowing away animals they want in the state will garner sympathy to your cause, you are in for a disappointment on a monumental scale. The blow back won't be pretty.