Free: Contests & Raffles.
"Wolf rallies around the country show that those "Against Wolves" out number those "For Wolves" typically 8 or 9 to 1."If the sample is drawn from individuals at a rally against wolves, I would expect a high percentage to be against wolves. How that pertains to the general public's opinion about wolves escapes me.
We had some wolf meetings in Colville, I doubt there were 10% in favor of wolves! You need to think outside the area you live to understand people in another areas!Check votes for Trump in NE WA or in Idaho or other heavy Trump states verses W WA!
Dale I wasn't saying there aren't places where wolves are hated by most of the people. But the article is inflammatory and doesn't say that. Misinforming the readers that anti-wolf is 8 or 9 to over pro-wolf is stupid. I live in W.WA and I support delisting. I support the Stevens Co. Cattleman's Assn. I support smoke a pack a day. I oppose the outrageous wolf plan and always have. But I also know that reality means that a vast majority of people in this state are pro-wolf. Ignoring that won't help when trying to fight the system which put them in place.
Quote from: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 12:54:50 PMWe had some wolf meetings in Colville, I doubt there were 10% in favor of wolves! You need to think outside the area you live to understand people in another areas!Check votes for Trump in NE WA or in Idaho or other heavy Trump states verses W WA! If you believe that statistics showing the number of people who support or oppose wolves taken at a rally opposed to wolves is somehow a meaningful representative of the general population, you are mistaken.Do you really believe 9 out of 10 people in Washington are opposed to wolves?Of course those in Colville are opposed to wolves, but when you are talking about the percentage of people in Washington who are opposed to wolves it will be a much smaller percentage.I'm simply saying that the statement in that article is meaningless if it intended to represent the public's opinion about wolves, which it implies it does.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on March 14, 2017, 01:10:52 PMDale I wasn't saying there aren't places where wolves are hated by most of the people. But the article is inflammatory and doesn't say that. Misinforming the readers that anti-wolf is 8 or 9 to over pro-wolf is stupid. I live in W.WA and I support delisting. I support the Stevens Co. Cattleman's Assn. I support smoke a pack a day. I oppose the outrageous wolf plan and always have. But I also know that reality means that a vast majority of people in this state are pro-wolf. Ignoring that won't help when trying to fight the system which put them in place.We lost the fight when the 15 bps wolf plan came out P-man, the only thing that could possible change the wolf problem in WA today is it the USFWS delisted wolves in every state. WDF&wolves along with their fake environmental partners would still try to play the wolves as endangered game, but federal money for the wolf program would disappear. Penalties for shooting wolves would be far less abusive etc..As far as the people for or against wolves, time seems to clarify truth, and as more people realize they were lied to about wolves their attitudes are changing. On the other hand there will always be those who will follow a farce to further an agenda. If you got all bound up over whether Toby meant the whole country hate wolves or those at the wolf rallies, maybe you should stay away from such "inflammatory" Topics.
time seems to clarify truth
It seems pretty simple: if 9 out of 10 people oppose wolves, and furthermore if the only opinions that matter on the issue are those who live in Northeast Washington then it should be very easy to get the wolf plan changed since there's essentially no opposition.
Quote from: wolfbait on March 14, 2017, 02:13:11 PM time seems to clarify truthYes, yes it does. I will just put this here: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,48084.msg582727.html#msg582727
Quote from: bearpaw on March 14, 2017, 12:15:10 PMQuote from: pianoman9701 on March 13, 2017, 09:14:58 AMI have a really hard time with an article that starts with a statement that those against wolves" outnumber "those for wolves" 8 or 9 to 1. Although I wish that were the case, that's just not true and is likely the other way around and more like 15 or 20 -1. About 96% of the population are non-hunters. Most of those people don't know about or understand the reasons people are anti-wolf. They are the uninformed public and represent a large majority who think wolves are "majestic", "cuddly like our dog", "a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem" or "would be cool to see and hear in the wild". I'm no pro-wolfer but if you want your argument to be at all credible, you have to start by telling the truth. This website doesn't do that 100% of the time and leaves people who forward its information open to ridicule.The ratio of people opposed to wolves depends where you live! In NE WA counties (Stevens, Ferry, Pend Oreille, Okanogan) I'd be willing to bet 75% are opposed to wolves. Where my son lives in Idaho I'll bet it's 90% opposed to wolves. I think the author lives in NW Montana, it's very likely 90% opposed to wolves in his county. This is the reason many people in E WA would like to be separated from W WA. Just to clarify, my comment is not pointed against friends and hunters in W WA, the comment is directed toward the pegetropolis liberal majority who want NE WA to live with wolves but don't want wolves in their own backyard.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on March 13, 2017, 09:14:58 AMI have a really hard time with an article that starts with a statement that those against wolves" outnumber "those for wolves" 8 or 9 to 1. Although I wish that were the case, that's just not true and is likely the other way around and more like 15 or 20 -1. About 96% of the population are non-hunters. Most of those people don't know about or understand the reasons people are anti-wolf. They are the uninformed public and represent a large majority who think wolves are "majestic", "cuddly like our dog", "a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem" or "would be cool to see and hear in the wild". I'm no pro-wolfer but if you want your argument to be at all credible, you have to start by telling the truth. This website doesn't do that 100% of the time and leaves people who forward its information open to ridicule.The ratio of people opposed to wolves depends where you live! In NE WA counties (Stevens, Ferry, Pend Oreille, Okanogan) I'd be willing to bet 75% are opposed to wolves. Where my son lives in Idaho I'll bet it's 90% opposed to wolves. I think the author lives in NW Montana, it's very likely 90% opposed to wolves in his county. This is the reason many people in E WA would like to be separated from W WA.
I have a really hard time with an article that starts with a statement that those against wolves" outnumber "those for wolves" 8 or 9 to 1. Although I wish that were the case, that's just not true and is likely the other way around and more like 15 or 20 -1. About 96% of the population are non-hunters. Most of those people don't know about or understand the reasons people are anti-wolf. They are the uninformed public and represent a large majority who think wolves are "majestic", "cuddly like our dog", "a necessary part of a balanced ecosystem" or "would be cool to see and hear in the wild". I'm no pro-wolfer but if you want your argument to be at all credible, you have to start by telling the truth. This website doesn't do that 100% of the time and leaves people who forward its information open to ridicule.
Quote from: Bob33 on March 14, 2017, 03:07:25 PMIt seems pretty simple: if 9 out of 10 people oppose wolves, and furthermore if the only opinions that matter on the issue are those who live in Northeast Washington then it should be very easy to get the wolf plan changed since there's essentially no opposition. I think I clearly stated the differences in the prevailing opinion regarding which areas people live! I don't think anyone has said, including the author, that the majority of residents living in urban areas are opposed to wolves. It appeared clear to me he was referring to gatherings in other areas where the residents who live with wolves don't want them and I think his numbers are very realistic. Like him or not, I think what you are arguing is different than the intent of the author's comments.
Quote from: wolfbait on March 14, 2017, 02:13:11 PMQuote from: pianoman9701 on March 14, 2017, 01:10:52 PMDale I wasn't saying there aren't places where wolves are hated by most of the people. But the article is inflammatory and doesn't say that. Misinforming the readers that anti-wolf is 8 or 9 to over pro-wolf is stupid. I live in W.WA and I support delisting. I support the Stevens Co. Cattleman's Assn. I support smoke a pack a day. I oppose the outrageous wolf plan and always have. But I also know that reality means that a vast majority of people in this state are pro-wolf. Ignoring that won't help when trying to fight the system which put them in place.We lost the fight when the 15 bps wolf plan came out P-man, the only thing that could possible change the wolf problem in WA today is it the USFWS delisted wolves in every state. WDF&wolves along with their fake environmental partners would still try to play the wolves as endangered game, but federal money for the wolf program would disappear. Penalties for shooting wolves would be far less abusive etc..As far as the people for or against wolves, time seems to clarify truth, and as more people realize they were lied to about wolves their attitudes are changing. On the other hand there will always be those who will follow a farce to further an agenda. If you got all bound up over whether Toby meant the whole country hate wolves or those at the wolf rallies, maybe you should stay away from such "inflammatory" Topics.Either way, it's a ridiculous statement. Distance yourself from BS and you'll be more credible.
