interesting article on coastal vs inland wolves

[wolfbait]

Page 3

[AspenBud]

Page 3

Even that guy states they expanded their range and weren't released in WA. Thanks Wolfbait.

[wolfbait]

Page 3

Even that guy states they expanded their range and weren't released in WA. Thanks Wolfbait.

No problem A-bud, like the letter above, it's how the wolves expanded thats going to cause WDFW problems in the future. How will WDFW explain the lie that the wolves "Naturally Migrated" to WA?

[Special T]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

[idahohuntr]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

[bearpaw]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

[AspenBud]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I think the bolded part is the point. On one day guys want to argue we had a little Rocky mountain/Cascade wolf in Idaho and Washington, they claim it even still existed, the next day those same guys will say a wolf is a wolf and even argue that there is no difference between wolves in Canada, Russia, or the Southwest. It makes them sound like they are basically trying to throw anything out there and hoping that something will stick. While I agree that the actions of Fish and Wildlife might seems shifty on the matter, desperately throwing random and conflicting claims about wolves makes folks look more like they just don't want wolves, not that they are concerned with any real science. I swear, sometimes I think the state could come out on the side of wolf management and people would still claim a big conspiracy and claim up was actually down...and then change their mind the next day if the state agreed with that.

[AspenBud]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

The original deal was wolves in Yellowstone. No more, no less. At least that was my understanding when the matter started.

[Special T]

If i use some logic to refute an opposing  opinion that in NO WAY means I believe it. It means that I am giving contrary evidence to the rules the DRIVER set up.

I have not changed my views, AND you are 100% correct YNP was SUPPOSED to be an experiment and should have been contained in the park... We all know that that was not the original intent. 

[AspenBud]

I have not changed my views, AND you are 100% correct YNP was SUPPOSED to be an experiment and should have been contained in the park... We all know that that was not the original intent. 

I think it was the original intent for some. But Yellowstone is where all the problems started. Ranchers howled about livestock losses when arguing against the idea before wolves were released, that started the snowball that led a lot of people to go "oh those ranchers, they'll argue against anything that might affect livestock." Later people decided they had so much success they needed to expand the idea.

I have to admit, I was surprised when I found out they were being released elsewhere years ago now.

[bearpaw]

I'm not sure if the original deal was YNP only. 

USFWS said they had wolves in NW Montana and when the releases were planned it was for x number of wolves in YNP and y number of wolves in central Idaho with the intention of those wolves in three areas to populate the NRM, three states 10 BP's each for delisting.

The Idaho legislature did not approve the release, the director of IDFG went against the legislature and permitted the release.

[idahohuntr]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

Your confusing state and federal ESA requirements.  USFWS set recovery goals and those have not changed.  They were sued multiple times during attempts to de-list throughout the 2000's and federal judges got involved.  USFWS and states always argued that reocvery goals were met, if there were changes to criteria it was solely out of a federal court order.  Fortunately, Simpson and Tester passed a law de-listing what any reasonable person could see was a recovered population...a de-listing law I might add that was opposed by Big Game Forever (BGF) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) 

I think scientists by and large are using best available data to classify wolves appropriately.  It is not logical and not supported by the evidence that wolves in inland central bc or alberta are any different at the subspecies level from wolves originally found in ID, MT, WY, WA.  That does not mean there are not different subspecies of wolves...sounds like there is merit to coastal/marine island wolves vs. inland wolves 

Now, for the 15 BP goal in WA...that is to meet state de-listing criteria and to my knowledge that has not changed.  Wolves are federally de-listed in E. Wa a la Simpson-Tester.

Bottom line, you asked how I can flatly say the goal posts have not changed...simple...I deal in facts and the agencies have not changed goal posts.  Others through the courts have muddied where those posts should be...but that is not nor has it ever been the doing of any state or federal agency. 

Maybe a better question for you would be: Given that BGF and SFW worked to try and stop the Simpson-Tester de-listing law, will you publicly denounce both of those organizations for putting their financial interest way ahead of the every day sportsmen whom they supposedly serve?

[bearpaw]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

Your confusing state and federal ESA requirements.  USFWS set recovery goals and those have not changed.  They were sued multiple times during attempts to de-list throughout the 2000's and federal judges got involved.  USFWS and states always argued that reocvery goals were met, if there were changes to criteria it was solely out of a federal court order.  Fortunately, Simpson and Tester passed a law de-listing what any reasonable person could see was a recovered population...a de-listing law I might add that was opposed by Big Game Forever (BGF) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) 

I think scientists by and large are using best available data to classify wolves appropriately.  It is not logical and not supported by the evidence that wolves in inland central bc or alberta are any different at the subspecies level from wolves originally found in ID, MT, WY, WA.  That does not mean there are not different subspecies of wolves...sounds like there is merit to coastal/marine island wolves vs. inland wolves 

Now, for the 15 BP goal in WA...that is to meet state de-listing criteria and to my knowledge that has not changed.  Wolves are federally de-listed in E. Wa a la Simpson-Tester.

Bottom line, you asked how I can flatly say the goal posts have not changed...simple...I deal in facts and the agencies have not changed goal posts.  Others through the courts have muddied where those posts should be...but that is not nor has it ever been the doing of any state or federal agency. 

Maybe a better question for you would be: Given that BGF and SFW worked to try and stop the Simpson-Tester de-listing law, will you publicly denounce both of those organizations for putting their financial interest way ahead of the every day sportsmen whom they supposedly serve?

You are a funny guy. 

Would you be willing to denounce Back County Hunters & Anglers for their association with anti-hunting groups.

[bearpaw]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

Your confusing state and federal ESA requirements.  USFWS set recovery goals and those have not changed.  They were sued multiple times during attempts to de-list throughout the 2000's and federal judges got involved.  USFWS and states always argued that reocvery goals were met, if there were changes to criteria it was solely out of a federal court order.  Fortunately, Simpson and Tester passed a law de-listing what any reasonable person could see was a recovered population...a de-listing law I might add that was opposed by Big Game Forever (BGF) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) 

I think scientists by and large are using best available data to classify wolves appropriately.  It is not logical and not supported by the evidence that wolves in inland central bc or alberta are any different at the subspecies level from wolves originally found in ID, MT, WY, WA.  That does not mean there are not different subspecies of wolves...sounds like there is merit to coastal/marine island wolves vs. inland wolves 

Now, for the 15 BP goal in WA...that is to meet state de-listing criteria and to my knowledge that has not changed.  Wolves are federally de-listed in E. Wa a la Simpson-Tester.

Bottom line, you asked how I can flatly say the goal posts have not changed...simple...I deal in facts and the agencies have not changed goal posts.  Others through the courts have muddied where those posts should be...but that is not nor has it ever been the doing of any state or federal agency. 

Maybe a better question for you would be: Given that BGF and SFW worked to try and stop the Simpson-Tester de-listing law, will you publicly denounce both of those organizations for putting their financial interest way ahead of the every day sportsmen whom they supposedly serve?

I like to deal in facts too, please show me where Washington having 15 BP's was included in the original wolf recovery plan.

[idahohuntr]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

Your confusing state and federal ESA requirements.  USFWS set recovery goals and those have not changed.  They were sued multiple times during attempts to de-list throughout the 2000's and federal judges got involved.  USFWS and states always argued that reocvery goals were met, if there were changes to criteria it was solely out of a federal court order.  Fortunately, Simpson and Tester passed a law de-listing what any reasonable person could see was a recovered population...a de-listing law I might add that was opposed by Big Game Forever (BGF) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) 

I think scientists by and large are using best available data to classify wolves appropriately.  It is not logical and not supported by the evidence that wolves in inland central bc or alberta are any different at the subspecies level from wolves originally found in ID, MT, WY, WA.  That does not mean there are not different subspecies of wolves...sounds like there is merit to coastal/marine island wolves vs. inland wolves 

Now, for the 15 BP goal in WA...that is to meet state de-listing criteria and to my knowledge that has not changed.  Wolves are federally de-listed in E. Wa a la Simpson-Tester.

Bottom line, you asked how I can flatly say the goal posts have not changed...simple...I deal in facts and the agencies have not changed goal posts.  Others through the courts have muddied where those posts should be...but that is not nor has it ever been the doing of any state or federal agency. 

Maybe a better question for you would be: Given that BGF and SFW worked to try and stop the Simpson-Tester de-listing law, will you publicly denounce both of those organizations for putting their financial interest way ahead of the every day sportsmen whom they supposedly serve?

You are a funny guy. 

Would you be willing to denounce Back County Hunters & Anglers for their association with anti-hunting groups.

It really would be funny if it were not true.  They tried to stop wolf de-listing because it would cause them financial harm...or they are run by a bunch of really dumb people...I'm not sure which.  Do you know why they tried to stop wolves from being de-listed so we could hunt them?  Was it greed or stupidity?