HB 1676: Understanding the effects of predation on wild ungulate populations

[stevemiller]

Steve, you seem to be very confused. First of all, wolves were never "reentroduced" into Washington state. If you continue to say that, and think that, nobody is going to take anything that you say serious. Second, Idahohunter is not a wolf advocate and he doesn't want wolves here, at least if I'm understanding his posts correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. If you're going to pick on somebody, you really need to get your facts straight.

I got my facts straight.I have a biologist family member in michigan that took care that the wolves taken to wa. And other states such as Idaho were all healthy and able before they were reintroduced.Believe it or not there are more wolves in wa. Than they want to admit to as well as that they have reintroduced them into this state and others.reintroduced to not be born their but taken there from another state.it is a fact that wa. Could not find any breeding pairs in the state and had to get breeding pairs from mich.

[KFhunter]

Well we do need to trigger the ungulate study per the wolf plan, wouldn't mind seeing some additional language in this bill really pinning down WDFW.

[mfswallace]

Steve, you seem to be very confused. First of all, wolves were never "reentroduced" into Washington state. If you continue to say that, and think that, nobody is going to take anything that you say serious. Second, Idahohunter is not a wolf advocate and he doesn't want wolves here, at least if I'm understanding his posts correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. If you're going to pick on somebody, you really need to get your facts straight.

I got my facts straight.I have a biologist family member in michigan that took care that the wolves taken to wa. And other states such as Idaho were all healthy and able before they were reintroduced.Believe it or not there are more wolves in wa. Than they want to admit to as well as that they have reintroduced them into this state and others.reintroduced to not be born their but taken there from another state.it is a fact that wa. Could not find any breeding pairs in the state and had to get breeding pairs from mich.

Would love to see some documentation or proof of that 

[huntrights]

WDFW stood at the public meeting in Colville and stated that they would have to study herd numbers to determine if wolf predation was affecting herd numbers before any season could be considered as stated in the wolf plan regarding ungulate predation by wolves.

This legislation will expedite that process! It may not matter what happens to game in the NE to some of you guys, but to other it does matter. If wolves are impacting our herds and need managed for that reason those studies will have to take place according to WDFW.

 


There are some that seem to be confused about this bill.  We absolutely need an unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science) that assesses the health and trends of Washington’s wild ungulate populations where wolf populations exist and where they have not yet expanded.

There was a recent correlative (NOT CAUSATIVE) type of study that indicated lethal control of wolves may result in an increase of livestock depredation.  Read the editorial (by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online! - see the link below) of this research; it gives an interesting perspective that may help some to understand why HB 1676 is important.


Believe It: Killing Wolves Works
Editorial
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
December 6, 2014
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm

Correlative studies like the one referred to in the editorial might be used to mislead the general public and legislators that do not understand the difference between correlation and causation.  Correlation does NOT imply causation.

Below is some interesting reading which may help some folks to understand why we may need to guide future research through legislation to ensure the science is sound and unbiased and that the research is what is needed by wildlife managers.


Correlation does not imply causation
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html

Excerpt from article:
""Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other ..."


Correlation and Causation
https://explorable.com/correlation-and-causation

Excerpt from article:
"Correlation and causation, closely related to confounding variables, is the incorrect assumption that because something correlates, there is a causal relationship.

Causality is the area of statistics that is most commonly misused, and misinterpreted, by non-specialists. Media sources, politicians and lobby groups often leap upon a perceived correlation, and use it to 'prove' their own beliefs. They fail to understand that, just because results show a correlation, there is no proof of an underlying causality.

Many people assume that because a poll, or a statistic, contains many numbers, it must be scientific, and therefore correct."


Misuse, Misinterpretation and Bias
http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html?misuse_and_abuse_of_statistics.html

Excerpt from article:
“A great deal has been written about the misuse of statistics by pressure groups and politicians, by pollsters and advertising campaigns, by the broadcast media (newspapers, magazines, television, and now the Internet), and even misuse by statisticians and scientists. In some instances the misuse has been simply lack of awareness of the kinds of problems that may be encountered, in others carelessness or lack of caution and review, whilst on occasion this misuse is deliberate. One reason for this has been the growth of so-called evidence-based policy making - using research results to guide and justify political, economic and social decision-making. Whilst carefully designed, peer-reviewed and repeatable research does provide a strong foundation for decision-making, weak research or selective presentation of results can have profoundly damaging consequences.”


The Ice Cream Murders: Correlation vs. Causation
http://biojournalism.com/2012/08/correlation-vs-causation/

Excerpt from article:
“From New York to Chicago, large cities have reported increases in violent crime and murder rates during certain periods. Suspiciously enough, sales of ice cream also skyrocket at the exact same time. … Even though ice cream and homicide rates are positively correlated, we cannot say that they have a causal relationship. In other words, ice cream consumption does not turn harmless Joe into a murderous monster.”


HB 1676 needs to pass.

[mfswallace]

WDFW stood at the public meeting in Colville and stated that they would have to study herd numbers to determine if wolf predation was affecting herd numbers before any season could be considered as stated in the wolf plan regarding ungulate predation by wolves.

This legislation will expedite that process! It may not matter what happens to game in the NE to some of you guys, but to other it does matter. If wolves are impacting our herds and need managed for that reason those studies will have to take place according to WDFW.

 


There are some that seem to be confused about this bill.  We absolutely need an unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science) that assesses the health and trends of Washington’s wild ungulate populations where wolf populations exist and where they have not yet expanded.

There was a recent correlative (NOT CAUSATIVE) type of study that indicated lethal control of wolves may result in an increase of livestock depredation.  Read the critical review (by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online! - see the link below) of this research; it may help some to understand why HB 1676 is important.


Believe It: Killing Wolves Works
Editorial
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
December 6, 2014
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm

Correlative studies like the one referred to in the editorial might be used to mislead the general public and legislators that do not understand the difference between correlation and causation.  Correlation does NOT imply causation.

Below is some interesting reading which may help some folks to understand why we may need to guide future research through legislation to ensure the science is sound and unbiased and that the research is what is needed by wildlife managers.


Correlation does not imply causation
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html
""Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other ..."


Correlation and Causation
https://explorable.com/correlation-and-causation

"Correlation and causation, closely related to confounding variables, is the incorrect assumption that because something correlates, there is a causal relationship.

Causality is the area of statistics that is most commonly misused, and misinterpreted, by non-specialists. Media sources, politicians and lobby groups often leap upon a perceived correlation, and use it to 'prove' their own beliefs. They fail to understand that, just because results show a correlation, there is no proof of an underlying causality.

Many people assume that because a poll, or a statistic, contains many numbers, it must be scientific, and therefore correct."


Misuse, Misinterpretation and Bias
http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html?misuse_and_abuse_of_statistics.html

“A great deal has been written about the misuse of statistics by pressure groups and politicians, by pollsters and advertising campaigns, by the broadcast media (newspapers, magazines, television, and now the Internet), and even misuse by statisticians and scientists. In some instances the misuse has been simply lack of awareness of the kinds of problems that may be encountered, in others carelessness or lack of caution and review, whilst on occasion this misuse is deliberate. One reason for this has been the growth of so-called evidence-based policy making - using research results to guide and justify political, economic and social decision-making. Whilst carefully designed, peer-reviewed and repeatable research does provide a strong foundation for decision-making, weak research or selective presentation of results can have profoundly damaging consequences.”


The Ice Cream Murders: Correlation vs. Causation
http://biojournalism.com/2012/08/correlation-vs-causation/

“From New York to Chicago, large cities have reported increases in violent crime and murder rates during certain periods. Suspiciously enough, sales of ice cream also skyrocket at the exact same time. … Even though ice cream and homicide rates are positively correlated, we cannot say that they have a causal relationship. In other words, ice cream consumption does not turn harmless Joe into a murderous monster.”


HB 1676 needs to pass.

 

[idahohuntr]

Please tell me that you see the extraordinary irony in what you just posted, huntrights. 

I really could not have laid out a better case for why this bill should not be supported by sportsmen if I tried my very hardest. 

[dreamunelk]

Do the research.  It is not about the individual and not about the money.  It is about hunting and the experience. 
Is it hunting or the killing that generate the dollars?  Could be both?  I am not sure.  If it is about the killing our hunting heritage is doomed.  But, I am a hunter not a killer. 
For me it is the hunting!  I choose to elk hunt areas with low healthy populations but, have big mature bulls.  I am happy with tag soup knowing that I could have harvested but, chose to try for something else.  Start to fully understand wildlife population dynamics and you will see the light.  Look at the highest potential for mature bulls and you will find they are low population units.  These units have healthy predator populations.  It is the inefficient predator that is controlled. 
Big bulls are smart bulls that escaped all the predators.

Beware the ballot box!

That is not research.  Just someone saying what you want to hear.   Use this type of stuff to defending hunting and hunters lose!
If you can not verify the source don't use it!

Here's some research you should read...

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html

[stevemiller]

Steve, you seem to be very confused. First of all, wolves were never "reentroduced" into Washington state. If you continue to say that, and think that, nobody is going to take anything that you say serious. Second, Idahohunter is not a wolf advocate and he doesn't want wolves here, at least if I'm understanding his posts correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. If you're going to pick on somebody, you really need to get your facts straight.

I got my facts straight.I have a biologist family member in michigan that took care that the wolves taken to wa. And other states such as Idaho were all healthy and able before they were reintroduced.Believe it or not there are more wolves in wa. Than they want to admit to as well as that they have reintroduced them into this state and others.reintroduced to not be born their but taken there from another state.it is a fact that wa. Could not find any breeding pairs in the state and had to get breeding pairs from mich.

Would love to see some documentation or proof of that 

if their was any documentation or proof of a lot of things the gov. Does or does not do would be nice.but like a lot of things their just is no proof.but let me ask this 10 years ago anyone see or hear of any wolves where they see and hear them now? No. 

[mfswallace]

Do the research.  It is not about the individual and not about the money.  It is about hunting and the experience. 
Is it hunting or the killing that generate the dollars?  Could be both?  I am not sure.  If it is about the killing our hunting heritage is doomed.  But, I am a hunter not a killer. 
For me it is the hunting!  I choose to elk hunt areas with low healthy populations but, have big mature bulls.  I am happy with tag soup knowing that I could have harvested but, chose to try for something else.  Start to fully understand wildlife population dynamics and you will see the light.  Look at the highest potential for mature bulls and you will find they are low population units.  These units have healthy predator populations.  It is the inefficient predator that is controlled. 
Big bulls are smart bulls that escaped all the predators.

Beware the ballot box!

That is not research.  Just someone saying what you want to hear.   Use this type of stuff to defending hunting and hunters lose!
If you can not verify the source don't use it!

Here's some research you should read...

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html

Ditto 

[Little Dave]

It sounds like a good idea...

No.

Here's why:  The only probable winner with this law would be a lawyer.

A law like this is a shiny new tool in a trial lawyer's toolbox.  If enacted, the very instant the department slips on one of the provisions of this law in even the slightest way, there will be an "environmental group" dispatching their lawyer to sue the department on behalf of the people.  The lawsuit will be expensive and the state will end up paying that lawyer.  The money for the lawsuit will come from where?  Higher hunting license fees, staff cutbacks?

The department should be doing this anyway.  Send them a letter.

Don't trust politicians and lawyers with wildlife management.
I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog.

[huntrights]

Please tell me that you see the extraordinary irony in what you just posted, huntrights. 

I really could not have laid out a better case for why this bill should not be supported by sportsmen if I tried my very hardest. 

Just curious, but ... Does that mean you believe that if you remove problematic wolves from a pack that attack livestock that depredation of livestock will increase?  Please consider reading the post again.

However, you do have a right to your opinion as do all of us.

[mfswallace]

It sounds like a good idea...

No.

Here's why:  The only probable winner with this law would be a lawyer.

A law like this is a shiny new tool in a trial lawyer's toolbox.  If enacted, the very instant the department slips on one of the provisions of this law in even the slightest way, there will be an "environmental group" dispatching their lawyer to sue the department on behalf of the people.  The lawsuit will be expensive and the state will end up paying that lawyer.  The money for the lawsuit will come from where?  Higher hunting license fees, staff cutbacks?

The department should be doing this anyway.  Send them a letter.

Don't trust politicians and lawyers with wildlife management.
I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog.

Yes they should but they aren't  your letters haven't changed anything just like mine 

[Knocker of rocks]

There are some that seem to be confused about this bill.  We absolutely need an unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science) that assesses the health and trends of Washington’s wild ungulate populations where wolf populations exist and where they have not yet expanded.

There was a recent correlative (NOT CAUSATIVE) type of study that indicated lethal control of wolves may result in an increase of livestock depredation.  Read the critical review (by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online! - see the link below) of this research; it may help some to understand why HB 1676 is important.

Seems to be that "unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science)" is science that comes to the conclusion you already have.  I don't think The Pinedale Weekly is a very strong source to rebuke the peer reviewed post-Doc work at WSU.

[bearpaw]

It would seem prudent to have some population counts on which to base management!

[idahohuntr]

Please tell me that you see the extraordinary irony in what you just posted, huntrights. 

I really could not have laid out a better case for why this bill should not be supported by sportsmen if I tried my very hardest. 

Just curious, but ... Does that mean you believe that if you remove problematic wolves from a pack that attack livestock that depredation of livestock will increase? 

No.  Nor do I believe in a bill that directs a department to use the same methodology you despise to draw management conclusions about ungulate population trends. Fighting bad science with bad science makes for horrible policy and sportsmen lose.

As the gentleman above noted...lets not put wildlife management even more firmly in the hands of politicians and lawyers than it already is.