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

[KFhunter]

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

I think your right and there can't be anything wrong with that.  I don't understand why folks are trying to muddy up the water with all this distracting dialog.

[Little Dave]

Keeping the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" thing in mind.  How convenient for the department that we are so silent to them, arguing this matter in our safe and sound-proof place.  From their point of view, nothing is wrong.  Very few letters are coming in.

We invest a lot of time here to discuss wolves, but it counts for nothing posting, or debating wolves at camp, at the river, at the range but not to the folks that read the local paper that might stand with us and flooding the department with frequent letters.

It's work.

The idea that we step aside from our volunteer, stewardship ethic, the work, for the convenience of having a lawyer do the work for us is embarrassing.  If that's what we are about to do, we deserve the result that we get.

[huntrights]

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.

Sound and unbiased science does not come to preconceived conclusions; valid studies need to be performed before coming to conclusions.  Typically, good scientific studies will result in more questions that need to be answered through additional research (sound and unbiased science).  To emphasize to all, correlation does NOT imply causation; that's a fact.

Article from Princeton.edu to clarify the semantics:
"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 (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). ..."


Now, for the record, let's take a look at what happened on the same day the "study" we are talking about was published ((December 3, 2014).  Pay particular attention to the headlines.

Note the source of this first article:
WSU News
Research finds lethal wolf control backfires on livestock
https://news.wsu.edu/2014/12/03/research-finds-lethal-wolf-control-backfires-on-livestock/#.VJ203v84B
December 3, 2014
By Eric Sorensen, WSU science writer

Why Killing Wolves Might Not Save Livestock
New study fuels debate over how to reduce attacks on cows and sheep
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203-wolves-hunting-livestock-ranchers-endangered-species-environment/
By Warren Cornwall
for National Geographic
Published December 3, 2014

Wolf Hunting To Protect Livestock Is Counterproductive, New Study Says
http://www.hngn.com/articles/51609/20141203/wolf-hunting-to-protect-livestock-is-counterproductive-new-study-says.htm
By Rebekah Marcarelli r.marcarelli@hngn.com | Dec 03, 2014 03:00 PM EST

NPR Story
11:00 am
Wed December 3, 2014
How Killing Wolves Might Be Leading To More Livestock Attacks
http://ijpr.org/post/study-killing-wolves-causes-more-livestock-depredation
By Courtney Flatt

How Killing Wolves Might Be Leading To More Livestock Attacks - Same article as above, but different website.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/study-killing-wolves-causes-more-livestock-depreda/
Dec. 3, 2014 | Northwest Public Radio

Study Faults Efforts at Wolf Management
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/washington-state-study-faults-efforts-at-wolf-management.html?_r=2
By KIRK JOHNSON DEC. 3, 2014

December 3 2014, 2.40pm EST
Wolf cull backfires as wild canines feast on farm animals
http://theconversation.com/wolf-cull-backfires-as-wild-canines-feast-on-farm-animals-34997 

First published December 3rd 2014, 11:16 am
Kill This Wolf and More Sheep Will Die, Study Suggests
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/kill-wolf-more-sheep-will-die-study-suggests-n260826
By Miguel Llanos

Killing wolves to save livestock may backfire
http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2014/12/killing-wolves-save-livestock-may-backfire
By
Virginia Morell
3 December 2014 2:00 pm


 
From a prior post:

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.”

[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? 

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.

Not sure where the conclusion of "fighting bad science with bad science" came from.  Correlative studies and causative studies are both valid forms of science.  Causative studies may follow correlative studies if the correlative studies indicate a very high probability of a causal relationship.  Studies to establish causation may be performed if they are justified, and worth the expense and effort.  Issues arise when correlative studies are misused, misinterpreted, or biased. (See the headlines about the study in a prior post).

All citizens should "despise" bad science, and any misuse, misinterpretation, and bias of any scientific studies. 

Please read the bill:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1676-S.pdf




 

[idahohuntr]

To emphasize for all, correlation does NOT imply causation; that's a fact.

Correlative studies and causative studies are both valid forms of science. 

Correlation does not PROVE causation.  With a plausible mechanism identified it can most certainly IMPLY causation.

Lets allow the professionals to design the studies and leave the politicians to come up with things more in their lane...like what the fine should be for a parking ticket...or other really important stuff like that

 

[bearpaw]

If WDFW had already done population counts this wouldn't be an issue.

[jasnt]

If WDFW had already done population counts this wouldn't be an issue.

they only count fish these days.

[mfswallace]

To emphasize for all, correlation does NOT imply causation; that's a fact.

Correlative studies and causative studies are both valid forms of science. 

Correlation does not PROVE causation.  With a plausible mechanism identified it can most certainly IMPLY causation.

Lets allow the professionals to design the studies and leave the politicians to come up with things more in their lane...like what the fine should be for a parking ticket...or other really important stuff like that

When the "professionals" are biased they cease to be professional. Wdfw clearly favors pro-wolf groups, why will they take their money and help but not the cattlemens ass. ?  You keep saying we're here deal with it,   this "intense" ungulate population study should have been done before but wasn't, so yes, we're here and we need to deal with it in a more responsible manner than has happened so far 

[idahohuntr]

When the "professionals" are biased they cease to be professional. Wdfw clearly favors pro-wolf groups, why will they take their money and help but not the cattlemens ass. ? 

What pro-wolf money has wdfw taken?  And what cattlemens money was not?  I have heard of pro wolf groups offering big reward money to private citizens for the conviction of wolf poachers...which is their 1st amendment right.  I've also heard that cattlemens unofficially offered to have someone of their choosing trap for wdfw. I hope you have something more than these two examples if you are using that as the basis for your argument that wdfw is biased towards pro wolf groups.

[huntrights]

To emphasize for all, correlation does NOT imply causation; that's a fact.

Correlative studies and causative studies are both valid forms of science. 

Correlation does not PROVE causation.  With a plausible mechanism identified it can most certainly IMPLY causation.

Lets allow the professionals to design the studies and leave the politicians to come up with things more in their lane...like what the fine should be for a parking ticket...or other really important stuff like that

Just curious - Could you provide what you think a "plausible mechanism" would be to get the needed study done with the required funding and guidelines to ensure a sound and unbiased study is performed to give our wildlife managers the information they need?  The bill provides an excellent mechanism to get the needed study done; if you believe you have a better idea, please share it.


Article from Princeton.edu to clarify the semantics:
"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 (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). ..."


The "study" that has become part of this discussion should not distract from the original topic, HB 1676; it was mentioned to make sure people understand the difference between correlation and causation, and also to understand how "Misuse, Misinterpretation and Bias" might enter into the picture - see the headlines about the "study" in a prior post. 

 
HB 1676 is good bill.

[stevemiller]

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

This would have been easier to do If they were not trying so hard to hide what they brought into the state from other states.The way I understand it,It is so hush with more than one entity bringing them in they dont even know how or who all brought the pairs in.Of course you all know that this is a lie we already had a very sustainable number of gray wolves living in WA. Semantics:If you dont agree to the term reintroduced thats fine,How about relocated from another state?Were the elk reintroduced to WA?Elk,They were all but gone and were reintroduced from other states.I guess my question is this Idahohuntr,Do you think all the wolves we have in WA. today have been here all along and just needed to be left alone to populate or what?I dont get what you are saying about this at all.

[mfswallace]

When the "professionals" are biased they cease to be professional. Wdfw clearly favors pro-wolf groups, why will they take their money and help but not the cattlemens ass. ? 

What pro-wolf money has wdfw taken?  And what cattlemens money was not?  I have heard of pro wolf groups offering big reward money to private citizens for the conviction of wolf poachers...which is their 1st amendment right.  I've also heard that cattlemens unofficially offered to have someone of their choosing trap for wdfw. I hope you have something more than these two examples if you are using that as the basis for your argument that wdfw is biased towards pro wolf groups.

1) Concerning smackout wolf that was found dead- http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release-print/mar1714a/

OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WFDW) is seeking the public's help to identify the person or persons responsible for shooting and killing a gray wolf last month in Stevens County.

WDFW, with the help of three non-profit organizations, is offering a reward of up to $22,500 for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case.  Conservation Northwest, the Center for Biological Diversity, and The Humane Society of the United States, have each pledged $7,500 to create the reward.

2)   Ruby Creek wolf captured, placed
 in western Washington sanctuary

3) from http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/mar/01/conservationists-boost-rewards-bagging-poachers-washington/

  "Information is the coin of this realm,” said Mike Cenci, WDFW deputy chief of enforcement. “We appreciate Conservation Northwest’s donation, as it will help us do our job of putting poachers behind bars and keeping Washington’s wildlife safe for everyone to enjoy.”

4) Only 1 of the 4 huckleberry wolves slated for extinction was killed after pressure from CNW and others

5) While I doubt you'll believe this, you must admit this is a well established professional organization--  Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association President Scott Nielsen.
“After working on the wolf issue for two years and attempting to engage the Department of Fish and Wildlife on this issue by having dozens of meetings, sending letters, testifying before the Fish and Wildlife Commission, holding public meetings for WDFW to speak at and trying to work the channels they have available, we have experienced a total failure in public policy,” said Nielsen. “All of these efforts to get the state to abide by its own wolf plan and to implement lethal control or consider other options like translocation have been largely futile. The state is not serious about following the Wolf Conservation and Management plan and their inconsistency is going to put our family ranches out of business.”

I don't expect you to accept this as bias but you asked...

[idahohuntr]

Just curious - Could you provide what you think a "plausible mechanism" would be to get the needed study done with the required funding and guidelines to ensure a sound and unbiased study is performed to give our wildlife managers the information they need?  The bill provides an excellent mechanism to get the needed study done; if you believe you have a better idea, please share it.

Yes, I have a much better idea - it's founded upon the premise that professional wildlife managers design and conduct appropriate analyses to manage the states wildlife as opposed to part-time political hacks and lawyers.  It is fine if you like ballot box wildlife management...its what brought us hound and bait bans...I simply refuse to support that kind of management or "science" 

Idahohuntr,Do you think all the wolves we have in WA. today have been here all along and just needed to be left alone to populate or what?I dont get what you are saying about this at all.

 
Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP starting in 1995.  The wolves in WA migrated from there as populations expanded in those regions.  It is also very likely wolves moved in/around WA before 1995, primarily from BC.  I don't know what you mean about being left alone to populate.

I don't expect you to accept this as bias but you asked...

 
I don't.  The money was not provided to WDFW...it was a reward to any citizen with information...It is well within their right to offer up such a reward.  The other stuff you posted...   The greenies would post that the wedge pack removal effort and many other lethal actions are all because wdfw is catering to cattlemens and hunters.   When you've got both sides of a controversial issue crying foul...you're probably doing something right 

[BOWHUNTER45]

Only bill I would support is to KILL THEM ALL    But wait a minute ..the dept wants you to expand your hunting opportunity by applying for a Multi Season permit  I am always lost 

[mfswallace]

 idhunter  "The greenies would post that the wedge pack removal effort and many other lethal actions are all because wdfw is catering to cattlemens and hunters."

The difference being these actions are written into the wolf management plan but wdfw is ignoring their own plan