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

[jackelope]

What's really unfortunate in my eyes in all of these threads is that with the crew of people we've got on this forum, we could really put our collective heads together and get stuff done. We've got outfitters, WDFW, ranchers, farmers, biologists, regular joe hunters...the list goes on. Instead, we choose to piss in each others' cheerio's on a daily basis over and over and over. You all should take a look around. There's a reason it's the same 6 or 8 people constantly in these threads. It's because everyone else is sick of all the trash talk. Consider that next time one of these threads is started.

Just my 

I swore off the wolf forum board for a long time, clicked "Ignore" because I was sick of all the trash talk...decided to give it another go. That was pointless.

[AspenBud]

I have never asked family members if deer hunters in those states also hunt grouse like here in WA? Could it be if one reason you see more grouse is because half as many deer hunters are in the woods so far fewer grouse are being taken by hunters?

Only if you consider that gun season, at least in Michigan, is limited to 15 days in November. Otherwise it's mostly bow hunters sitting in trees mixed with some muzzle loader folks and at last count it was illegal to pack heat as a bow hunter there.

I'd argue that lake states grouse get a lot more pressure than they do here. Here they are birds of opportunity, there they are birds actively hunted day in and day out by guys with dogs that have hunted nothing else as well as out of state hunters from states that don't have them in numbers. You also have a lot of people hunting them that might not have 50 years ago because the pheasant population crashed in places like Michigan so they hunt the only wild birds that are left to hunt. The birds tend to be jumpier and not very tolerant of pressure, what we have here, you can almost walk on them at times by comparison.

What they have is habitat, or more particularly lots of aspen, and if you don't continually cut those trees the stands will eventually die and the birds with them. If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.

Ruffed grouse field trials for pointing dogs didn't take off there because of a lack of deer hunters. They took off because the states had a lot of birds even long before wolves returned in numbers.

[bearpaw]

I have never asked family members if deer hunters in those states also hunt grouse like here in WA? Could it be if one reason you see more grouse is because half as many deer hunters are in the woods so far fewer grouse are being taken by hunters?

Only if you consider that gun season, at least in Michigan, is limited to 15 days in November. Otherwise it's mostly bow hunters sitting in trees mixed with some muzzle loader folks and at last count it was illegal to pack heat as a bow hunter there.

I'd argue that lake states grouse get a lot more pressure than they do here. Here they are birds of opportunity, there they are birds actively hunted day in and day out by guys with dogs that have hunted nothing else as well as out of state hunters from states that don't have them in numbers. The birds tend to be jumpier and not very tolerant of pressure, what we have here, you can almost walk on them at times by comparison.

What they have is habitat, or more particularly lots of aspen, and if you don't continually cut those trees the stands will eventually die and the birds with them. If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.

Ruffed grouse field trials for pointing dogs didn't take off there because of a lack of deer hunters. They took off because the states had a lot of birds even long before wolves returned in numbers.

This is a bit off-topic but my wife's family always talk about deer hunting so I have no idea about grouse there. From your posts I am having trouble determining if you are saying the grouse numbers are increasing or declining and if the grouse habitat is improving or declining?

Heck, it's a grouse hunter's paradise there with the state DNR launching their GEMS project to increase grouse habitat and increase hunter access up there.

If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.

[AspenBud]

I have never asked family members if deer hunters in those states also hunt grouse like here in WA? Could it be if one reason you see more grouse is because half as many deer hunters are in the woods so far fewer grouse are being taken by hunters?

Only if you consider that gun season, at least in Michigan, is limited to 15 days in November. Otherwise it's mostly bow hunters sitting in trees mixed with some muzzle loader folks and at last count it was illegal to pack heat as a bow hunter there.

I'd argue that lake states grouse get a lot more pressure than they do here. Here they are birds of opportunity, there they are birds actively hunted day in and day out by guys with dogs that have hunted nothing else as well as out of state hunters from states that don't have them in numbers. The birds tend to be jumpier and not very tolerant of pressure, what we have here, you can almost walk on them at times by comparison.

What they have is habitat, or more particularly lots of aspen, and if you don't continually cut those trees the stands will eventually die and the birds with them. If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.

Ruffed grouse field trials for pointing dogs didn't take off there because of a lack of deer hunters. They took off because the states had a lot of birds even long before wolves returned in numbers.

This is a bit off-topic but my wife's family always talk about deer hunting so I have no idea about grouse there. From your posts I am having trouble determining if you are saying the grouse numbers are increasing or declining and if the grouse habitat is improving or declining?

Heck, it's a grouse hunter's paradise there with the state DNR launching their GEMS project to increase grouse habitat and increase hunter access up there.

If anything there are fewer grouse there now than there were 50 years ago because logging practices changed. Old timers there will tell you as much.

It depends on where you are. From the perspective of Michigan, national forest land isn't logged like it used to be and state forest land is hit and miss. There is no logging going on in the southern LP and the woods there are aging. Things change about half way up the LP and into the UP, the state does a better job up there.

I'd argue grouse there are at a turning point. 50 years ago much of the state was in the middle of regrowth as much of it had been logged off. That created crazy grouse, and arguably deer, numbers, but as time goes on the forests keep getting older. The deer have the farms to get fat on, the grouse on the other hand are screwed in the absence of cutting and whether they are doing enough of that can be a contentious debate. Younger guys without the perspective of time think things are great, older guys who saw what it was like decades ago have another view.

Minnesota and Wisconsin, while different, are facing the same problem.

[Northway]

What's really unfortunate in my eyes in all of these threads is that with the crew of people we've got on this forum, we could really put our collective heads together and get stuff done. We've got outfitters, WDFW, ranchers, farmers, biologists, regular joe hunters...the list goes on. Instead, we choose to piss in each others' cheerio's on a daily basis over and over and over. You all should take a look around. There's a reason it's the same 6 or 8 people constantly in these threads. It's because everyone else is sick of all the trash talk. Consider that next time one of these threads is started.

Just my 

I swore off the wolf forum board for a long time, clicked "Ignore" because I was sick of all the trash talk...decided to give it another go. That was pointless.

It's one of the negative side-effects resulting from the rise of social media, blogs, etc. There's a certain group of people who use it as a platform to slander & insult others over even minor differences of opinion. They really drown out the conversations. How many people are reading this thread right now who care about this issue but absolutely refuse to post because of the vitriol? I'd bet a beer that a number of them have some interesting things to say.

You can't over-moderate a blog either, though. Go too far one way and it's the anti-social lunatic who shouts every one else out of the room; too far the other and the conversation gets sterile.

I wouldn't turn your back on these difficult topics. I personally use this website along with a bunch of others to test my positions on various issues. You seem like a level-headed guy and if you post something, I read it if I come across it.

[jackelope]

What's really unfortunate in my eyes in all of these threads is that with the crew of people we've got on this forum, we could really put our collective heads together and get stuff done. We've got outfitters, WDFW, ranchers, farmers, biologists, regular joe hunters...the list goes on. Instead, we choose to piss in each others' cheerio's on a daily basis over and over and over. You all should take a look around. There's a reason it's the same 6 or 8 people constantly in these threads. It's because everyone else is sick of all the trash talk. Consider that next time one of these threads is started.

Just my 

I swore off the wolf forum board for a long time, clicked "Ignore" because I was sick of all the trash talk...decided to give it another go. That was pointless.

It's one of the negative side-effects resulting from the rise of social media, blogs, etc. There's a certain group of people who use it as a platform to slander & insult others over even minor differences of opinion. They really drown out the conversations. How many people are reading this thread right now who care about this issue but absolutely refuse to post because of the vitriol? I'd bet a beer that a number of them have some interesting things to say.

You can't over-moderate a blog either, though. Go too far one way and it's the anti-social lunatic who shouts every one else out of the room; too far the other and the conversation gets sterile.

I wouldn't turn your back on these difficult topics. I personally use this website along with a bunch of others to test my positions on various issues. You seem like a level-headed guy and if you post something, I read it if I come across it.

Well said. I appreciate the follow up and the compliment. I just feel like a lot of these threads are pissing in the wind because the pissing matches are played out. Nobody wants to hear them anymore. Those that are reading with interesting things to say will not post. It'll be difficult to turn that trend around at this point, if not impossible.
Thanks again.

[idahohuntr]

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.

[steen]

The wolf is a fantastic tool to help bring about an end to hunting;  ending logging might be an over reach though for this particular tool.

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not the only tool to be sure, but a big one; it's all cumulative along with limiting access, wilderness, lead bans..etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000

A very low % of hunters utilize wilderness, I know it's the elite thing to do pack into the wilderness for a week hunt, but the result would be 99% of hunters not hunting if all hunting were limited to wilderness areas only.   (example)

Wolves reduce hunter opportunity.  I realize Washington's in the "honeymoon" phase of wolf introduction but eventually WDFW will quit trying to hide wolf impact and reduce the hunter opportunities by going draw only - once that happens it's a steep downhill slide to reduced hunting for all.

Yes, there are lots of things that reduce hunter opportunity...habitat loss, habitat degradation, loss of access are all exponentially more of a problem than wolves ever will be in most areas of the state (and country).

I am a bit puzzled by your "elite" view of wilderness hunting...when I load up a few mules into the back of my grandpas old horse trailer and hope the pickup doesn't die on my way to meet my dad to ride into some wilderness area for a hunt I sure would have a hard time describing that as "elite"    I agree that wilderness limits human activity because you can't have trucks/atvs etc. in those areas...but its not as though they are areas for the elite.  My sense is, some people are unwilling or unable to access these difficult areas...it is usually a ton of work to hunt in wilderness areas...and most people just don't want to put that much effort into their vacation/recreation...about day 4 of most of my wilderness hunts I don't blame them!

I would love to hunt in the wilderness where others don't go but I have to work.  So it is not laziness or unwillingness on my part but not enough time and money. If I that kind of time and money I'd be up there as long as is alowed!!!! Honestly I don't think wolves are necessary in the wild unless there are no people.  We are a good enough predator and don't need the wolf.

[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

[KFhunter]

When tree huggers quit petitioning WDFW to stop lethal control measures.
When wolf huggers quit blaming cattle ranchers for wolves killing cattle
When Idahohnter acknowledges I was right all along.......

[mountainman]

When tree huggers quit petitioning WDFW to stop lethal control measures.
When wolf huggers quit blaming cattle ranchers for wolves killing cattle
When Idahohnter acknowledges I was right all along.......

that's funny, no disrespect Idaho!

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

And you never add to the drama? 9 c'mon...relax a little Jack..

[KFhunter]

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.

[idahohuntr]

When Idahohnter acknowledges I was right all along.......

I really would like to agree with you...but then we would both be wrong       

[bearpaw]

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.

[Axle]

I think its quite an overreach to suggest wolves will help end hunting.  They were re-introduced into Idaho just about 20 years ago and there is absolutely no "end to hunting" in sight. 

Not exactly. The Canadian grey wolf was 'unlawfully introduced' - not re-introduced. What few native wolves there were have probably been eaten up by the bigger non-native greys.
 
And as for hunting, I haven't hunted Idaho but I have many friends who used to but gave up due to there being far less deer and elk than there used to be. The cougars hit the ungulates hard since the late 80s and then the wolf has made further inroads to drastically reduce the numbers.