@luvtohunt,
1) junk science and fraud ...
The conception of a “utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity” is such intellectual rubbish, that it raises the hackles on my neck. I am glad to say, however, that Charles Elton, the father of modern ecology, had a similar view to mine, namely that ecosystems are expressions of positive feed back loops and thus “ungoverned” and stochastic in their expressions and consequently ever changing. “Ecosystems” even raise the question if they are systems, because there is nothing systematic in positive feed back. If you can understand why individuals are individuals, it is because they are controlled by negative feed back – negative! By contrast populations of organisms coming together in an ecosystem are never controlled – NEVER! – and are always subject to the whims and randomness of positive feed back. Know the difference between positive and negative feed back, and you are on the way of understanding both homeostasis in individuals and stochastic non-determinism in ecosystems. The “leave it alone” philosophy – if one can call it such – is a baseless faith, believing in a mythical “balance of nature”. It is worthless intellectually, ethically or morally – whatever the relation of ethics and morality. It is an expression of intellectual laziness, me-too ism, and a destructive force if expressed in policy. Like it or not we are the makers of our future today, and intellectually lazy, incompetent minds are no help for us in our crisis.
Valerius Geist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science.
Proof Wolf introduction of CL Occidentalis was concocted of junk science.
a) Why CLO? Because of just how eager Wolfaboo's are intending to take us (Rural residents, sport hunters, trappers, guides, outfitters, etc, etc, ) out of the picture for a future Y2Y predator sanctuary.
http://www.y2y.net/Default.aspx?cid=374&lang=12)you want to see wolf attacks on human's eh? So here ya go....
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.htmland,
"in the space of just three years (1849 – 1851), 260 adults and 110 children died because of wolves (Lazarevskii, 1876). Official statistics were kept of the cases. In the annual reports of the governors this information was concentrated in the table on the causes of death of the population into the column ”Killed by ...wild predators”. “Of all the 221 studied cases (attacks by non-rabid wolves 1820-1861) 73,4% of the children died, but only 13,5% of the adults."
so is this abundant proof wolves are dangerous to humans? Any attack upon human life by wolves is, in my book, completely unacceptable, let alone having our children becoming threatened because of some dipstick(s) liking the idea of having wolves (non native at best) in our region.
3) I don't have proof of Wdfg releasing wolves in cascades, however I have 1st hand knowledge of a group of people in Or. raising up and releasing wolf/hybrids throughout the cascades, even in Wa. They have been doing so for more then 20 years, ODFW hasn't said much about it other then they can do nothing to stop them. I personally contributed to there breeding stock (unknowingly of course) some 16+ years ago with a pair of wolves/hybrids I could no longer keep and gave them to a couple whom had a ranch and said they were breeders. I had no idea that this was there intent, or I would of had the big suckers put down. Male was 143 Lbs when I gave him away, and female was mean as hell with 1 green eye and 1 blue eye. They were cool dogs to own, but I learned they cannot be controlled like a family pet, and they both had a taste for livestock, and killed my horse with ease. I should of shot them right then and there, however, I thought at that time I could tame them down to be pets. My mistake.
4) It is not all about a job of studying and managing wildlife. Who in the heck let you believe that? Becoming a biologist, working for sportsmen whom are the backbone of why the job positions are available is surely the most important stance any fish and game official should take. We (sportsmen) are the reason we have had the abundant game populations that we experienced prior to CLO introduction into the lower 48. Fact of the matter is, if we want to get technical, most of the wages the F&G official receives are sportsmen generated. Without us sportsmen, F&G will have nothing to do in regards to when, where, why, and how many game animals are harvested. What?? you want it to be a free for all again like it was some 80 yrs ago?? No logic behind your statement what so ever... " Why would they really care about hunters, their job is to study and manage wildlife, not be all sentimental to the feelings of hunters. "
5) Who The heck do you support any way? If you think DOW are "forking" over monies to reimburse ranchers on there losses, that is just plain foolishness. DOW "WERE" paying out some to ranchers to help with losses, however, very, very few ranchers got any amount of money if at all, and it was monies DOW won from us Taxpayers in court, and received donations. How about they give up half of the millions they gained from us and put it into restoring our native wolves that were here prior to CLO introductions. Oregon may still have some of these very reclusive wolves.
Just so you make no mistake that this CLO introduced wolf does not belong here, how about some comparisons taken prior to and after introduction...
received e-mail...
> In response to your questions regarding the great disparity in levels of
> wolf depredation between our former resident wolves and the introduced Canadian
> Grey Wolf, let me attempt to clarify some of the historical issues that
> surround the work done by several counties in Idaho to document the Resident
> Wolves in the late 1980's.
> Starting in the early l980's attempts were being made by several Wildlife
> Agencies including Idaho Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Services to
> locate and monitor large predator species that were considered "threatened"
> or "endangered". A program was started to send questionaires to trappers and
> hunters asking for help in locating these animals, and signs were posted in
> public offices around the state seeking input from the public to determine if
> any of these species remained in the state and if so how many individuals were
> there. These programs came to be known as "The Wolf and Wolverine Hotlines". In
> reality there was a phone number to call that put you in contact with members
> of Idaho Fish and Game who would take the details of the public's sightings of
> these rare animals.
> It was in response to these efforts that counties in Central Idaho began
> to respond by sending correspondence and sightings to the Agencies involved. As
> the years passed in the 1980's a significant amount of data was collected by
> trappers, hunters, and Fish and Game officers to warrant full time research and
> monitoring of these species. As criterion to use for observing these species
> county residents were asked to look for numbers of individuals, sex, age, size
> of territory and behavioral qualities such as secretiveness, and recruitment
> numbers of young.
> During approximatley twelve years time, 1984-1995, much data using these
> criteria for observing Resident Wolves was collected and maps of the wolves
> territories and packs were created. During these years of observation, very
> consistent and difinitive behavioral and social traits became evident as this
> variety of wolf was observed. These traits would become all important in
> determining what the habitat and prey base this variety of wolf would need and
> the impacts it would have on our ungulate populations. A very important
> contribution to our ability to compare our variety of wolf to the introduced
> Canadian Grey Wolf was also a result of these years of observing the Resident
> Wolves in their prefered habitats.
> I will list the criterion used by the individuals involved in collecting
> data on the Pre-introduction Resident Wolves and then I will give a brief
> comparison to the same criterion as observed by all of us in the field as
> paticular to the Canadian Grey Wolf. Remember that really the most important
> issue to all of us now is the resulting impacts to our fragile ecosystems of
> one variety of wolf as compared to the other and its portent when deciding on
> effective wolf control measures.
>
> Pre-introduction Resident Wolves: (Wolves observed thru 1995 in Idaho)
>
> 1. Highly secretive behavior. Very sensitive to roads and highways.
> Largely nocturnal.
> 2. Usually found either as dispersed individuals or pairs.
> 3. Packing activity was very rare accept during months of Jan.-Feb.
> 4. Pack size at breeding time was usually 4 to 7 individuals.
> 5. Females (breeding bitches) retained pups for average 18 months.
> 6. Pack dispersal was very consistent after breeding season.
> 7. Litter size consistently 1-3 pups. Bitch bred at 2-year old stage.
> 8. Extremely selective as to food source. Rarely fed on old carcasses or
> kills of other species accept in the most harsh winter conditions.
> 9. Very much an opportunist when different prey was available. Spent great
> percentage of hunting effort on rodent acquistion, (voles to rabbits).
> 10. Sport Reflex Killing almost neglegible. Most ungulate depredation was
> consumptive not surplus. Typical kill had hams and shoulders consumed.
> ll. Territory of individual or pairs quite large. Average 2 week return
> cycle.
> 12. Wolf body size: Female 55lbs-70lbs, Male 85-105.
> 13. Competion with other predator species including coyote and fox was
> low. Other canine species coexisted and thrived in presence of Resident
> Wolves.
> 14. Habitat utilized consistently: Mid to high elevation, with forest and
> mixed forest. Resident Wolf very resistive to utilizing large areas of
> open rangeland with grass or sagebrush cover.
> l5. Older mature males almost always solitary except at breeding interval.
> 16. Conflict with domestic dogs very minimal except in rare cases.
> 17. Livestock depredations extremely rare but do occur in remote areas.
> l8. Consistent avoidance of manmade structures, roads, vehicles, humans.
>
> Note: This data as well as maps locating individual wolves as well as
> breeding pairs was hand delived to Craig Groves in l992 and entered
> into Idaho Fish and Game's Consevation Data Base by George Stevens.
> Craig Groves was at the time in charge of oversight of the Consevation
> Data Base and an Idaho Fish and Game employee.
and,
NON NATIVE WOLF
> Observed Criterion: Introduced Canadian Grey Wolf (Canis Lupus Occidentalis)
> 1996 to present.
>
> 1. Exibits low level of fear of humans. Non-secretive behavior. Minimal
> avoidance of humans, vehicles, domestic animals. Will cross large open
> terrain at will even when other options for cover are available.
> 2. Canadian Grey Wolf is found in small to very large pack sizes. Small
> packs of 5 individuals are common as are large packs with over 20
> members.
> 3. Pack merging, the condition of 2 or more packs combining is being
> observed in many areas in the west and is not uncommon. Merged packs
> of over 40 wolves have been observed in the Central Idaho Wilderness.
> 4. Females (breeding bitches) are can be bred even at 1 year of age and
> produce from 5 to 9 pups per season. The pups usually remain with the
> pack but can disperse or be driven off by other pack members. All
> females of breeding potential in the pack are usually bred. There is
> absolutely no indication that any females are kept from breeding by the
> theoretical "Alpha-female". Large packs are quickly produced and can
> disperse and merge several times within a week.
> 5. Canadian Grey Wolves show a diet preference for elk but will switch at
> will to secondary prey species. Low preference is shown for rodent
> species but wolves do sporadically hunt rodents.
> 6. Sport Reflex Killing is highly developed in Canadian Grey packs. From
> observations in the field, 3 to 5 ungulates are killed for each
> ungulate consumed. This surplus killing is greatly increased if the
> pack size is large or packs have merged. Often small wintering herds
> of deer or elk are completely extirpated in one hunting event.
> 7. Body Size: Females 60-85lbs, Males 90-120lbs.
> 8. Competion with other predatory species is extreme and often fatal. Both
> mountain lion and bear have been impacted by attacks and from reduced
> available prey. Other Canines such as Coyote and Fox have been severly
> impacted in most of their habitats. Fox are only able to survive in
> habitats that include lots of willow or dense underbrush. Coyote
> populations have been reduced but are persisting at lower than historic
> levels.
> 9. Canadian Grey Wolf has been found to utilize all available habitats,
> from high elevation alpine to sagebrush deserts. This has allowed the
> wolf to be opportunistic in all ecosystems available to it.
> 10. Large mature male wolves remain with the pack thru out the year,
> sometimes dispersing for short periods of time.
> 11. The Canadian Grey wolf is highly predatorial on all domestic canines.
> Hunting hounds are especially vulnerable to attacks and are usually
> killed outright in a confrontation by wolves.
> 12. Canadian Grey Wolves have shown a prefence for depredating on domestic
> livestock even with abundant natural prey present. Beef calves are the
> most common victims of wolf depredation.
> 13. Canadian Grey Wolves show a high level of habituation to humans, and
> man-made structures. It is not uncommon to find Canadian Grey Wolves
> in very remote areas eating out of dog dishes and coming onto porches
> of homes when the owners are present.
>
>
> It is clear from a comparison of the two varieties of wolves that control
> efforts will have to take into account the realities of dealing with a wolf as
> different as the Canadian Grey Wolf is from wolves found in other parts of the
> continent. Both the high fecundity of the Canadian Grey Wolf and its
> depredating qualities ensures that control efforts will have to be highly
> organized and long term if we are to protect our manificant wildlife from the
> debacle that is ongoing in Canada and in our western states.
> I will not in this email go into the fraud and corruption
> that brought us to this wildlife disaster, but suffice it to say that had the
> Federal Agencies not been corrupt in dealing with the information given them by
> Idaho and Montana and Wyoming citizens we would by now have had a recovered
> Resident wolf population that would still need to be managed but we would not
> have what we have now with the very existence of our ungulates hanging in the
> balance and wolf borne diseases threatening our way of life. If possible and
> time permits I will fill you in later on how our investigation turned out and
> who was responsible for purging our maps and data and carring out the
> introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf in direct violation of the Endangered
> Species Act. It is a very tragic story, but God willing we will turn this
> around!!.
> Yours,
> Tim Kemery
"I will not in this email go into the fraud and corruption" ...
He (Tim) , admits he has knowledge of such, what other proof do you need? Have you seen the Vid of Mr. Beers speaking about the theft of P/R Tax funds to facilitate this Bunk science? If not here is that link...
The Wolving of AmericaWolf introduction is A Criminal Enterprisehttp://www.youtube.com/user/Rockholm66As for the reporter guy bashing Mr. wolfbait, This guy is a reporter, and it's his job to dig up facts to obtain his storyline. If he thinks he can call BS on some of his facts, then so be it. He is not the bigger person for saying so. It is all the same as saying BS to his facts he presents. BS is as BS does in my book. No lolly-gaging want to be Biologist anywhere that does not consider wolves a threat to the future of their job and income potential is just plain and simple not in the best interest of our sportsman cooperative F&G departments. Sportsmen are the key to successful F&G agencies. (Bottom line)
Go with what you will, I too have said my
,
