Washington Wolf politics

[Special T]

So Wacoyote... Since you have access to this biological data that I'm guessing tax dollars have paid for please share... I know you have said that you have acquaintances working on different  aspects of this issue.... What do I need to do/ who do i need to make a request to to receive copies of the information that has been collected on this subject?  I know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument... I lean toward WB oppinion on wolves because there are so few facts to refute what he is saying.... I always like a good debate....  There is a quote that i like in reference to debate. "Instead of raising your voice, you should bolster your argument with facts!"

[jackelope]

I know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument...

I assume that I am lumped into this group. I think I should try to make it clear where at least I stand on this. I don't know where the rest of this "group" lies but here's where I stand.

I don't object to what Wolfbait says. I respect what he says and appreciate all the info he posts...really I do...he's right smack in the middle of ground zero wolf country. The problem that I have with all of this is the processes kind of...If you watch what people say on here regarding wolf sightings, most go un-reported. We need to report them, regardless of how we feel the WDFW or the Feds are going to handle it. This is the only way we will move towards delisting and management at a state level. The more we get reported and the more we get confirmed, the sooner we will be able to manage them on a state level. I know it's not the popular route, but at this point it's the only route. This is what I try to push...if folks see a wolf, report it. If nothing gets done about it, keep track of who you spoke to and go over their head if you don't get any follow up from it.

[wolfbait]

The Truthful Answer To "Why Wolves?" Is:
*To eliminate hunting



*To eliminate gun owner numbers by eliminating hunting



*To destroy family traditions like annual get-togethers



*To further emasculate rural economic activity and health



*To eliminate grazing on public lands



*To eliminate ranching on private property



*To create political-cover "science" to justify more Public Land Closures from Wilderness and Road Closures to "Critical" and          Pagan Land Closures, like "Corridors", "Wildlands", and                     "Commons"



*To eliminate the management and use of renewable natural resources like timber, forage, wildlife, and fisheries



*To replace the funding of state and federal agency budgets with revenues from funding with hunting, fishing, grazing and timber cutting with increased federal funds from the national Treasury that is so "Broke"



*To make current residents of rural communities fearful and stressed such that they will move to cities where they must give up guns, ride public transportation, and live dictated lives where powerful government authority is unchallenged



*To reduce rural land prices as people move away, businesses go broke, and new residents no longer see business or retirement or comfortable living circumstances



*To make rural land prices ever cheaper as federal and state agencies pick up parcels and non-government profiteers like The Nature conservancy profit from taking Easements and reselling parcels to government bureaucrats at a healthy profit



*To grow the power and budgets of federal bureaucrats and agencies as they claim more land and species that need protection (i.e. lock-up)



*To assure re-election of "concerned" politicians as they brag at election time and get "support" from radical organizations for "saving" this, that, and other environmental nonsense



*To strengthen the state/federal fish and wildlife agency alliance at the expense of state government and rural residents



*To create the future (immeasurable and never-ending) publicly-funded goal of "Restoring the Ecosystem" for state and federal natural resource agencies



*Finally,  to please the imaginings of urban American voters (often a voting majority) that controls the national government and many state governments wherein the destruction of rural voter's rights in the emerging democracy that is replacing the constitutional Republic has become acceptable
Thus far, wolves have been the result of urban voters' acceptance of propaganda and misinformation about the havoc and ruin that wolves have been wreaking on "others".  The urban voters turn a blind eye to the loss of rural America and traditions and cultures that they neither know nor will miss.  Urban voters and their children are told the lie that wolves are tolerable and that a few rural eggs must be broken to make an imaginary "ecosystem" wherein they may hear a wolf howl during some future but improbable vacation.  for mentioning these things I am described as everything from a "lunatic" to an "anti-predator" extremist that just wants to "kill animals".  Nothing could be farther from the truth. 
Published 6/10/10

An excellent article, read more at: http://www.lobowatch.com/WhyWolves.html

[WAcoyotehunter]

I guess you forget about that old saying, " you can *censored* the fans but not the players"

Why is it that the papers are always wrong according to wacoyote? 20 years ago the papers were wrong and now they are wrong again.

You are fun to debate the wolf issue with, sometimes I just let you step all over yourself before I say anything, and then poof yer gone.

I'm not sure you've debated anything wolfbait.  You make dumb jokes like the one above, and outrageous claims about conspiracies and wolf transplants but give no evidence to that effect.  To me, and to most rational folks, a newspaper article is not considered to be a 'scientific paper' as they are often inaccurate. 

If you want to make a claim, you need to be the one to prove it.  It is not up to me to prove that there was not a wolf plant in WA, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there was one...

Can you imagine writing a paper or report in the professional world without citing your 'facts'...you would get laughed out of the room.  SAVEelk, lobowatch, and Kat Urbigkit are not exactly credible sources...   Talk to a wolf biologist or someone that works with them to get information.  If you are on the right track then somewhere there will be legitimate documentation.  Find those sources to prove your point. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Here is one set of genetic results from a wolf up here.  It shows pretty clearly that this is a naturally colonizing animal that could appear without help from us.   I don't have copies of other reports, as much of my information has come  through discussions with the biologists that were there.  I suppose you could contact them and ask if you would like to see a copy. 

So Wacoyote... Since you have access to this biological data that I'm guessing tax dollars have paid for please share... I know you have said that you have acquaintances working on different  aspects of this issue.... What do I need to do/ who do i need to make a request to to receive copies of the information that has been collected on this subject?  I know that the people who object to WB rants on this subject have provided few facts/studies that run counter to his argument... I lean toward WB oppinion on wolves because there are so few facts to refute what he is saying.... I always like a good debate....  There is a quote that i like in reference to debate. "Instead of raising your voice, you should bolster your argument with facts!"

[haus]

That's not a bad theory Special T.  I think that determining the 'local stock' of wolves is important in this situation.   The wolves in the methow (the lookout pack anyway) are smaller animals (weighed in at 75 and 65 lbs in the summer) and are coastal BC animals.  They are likely the native animal for the north cascades and the west side. 
The animals in PO county are larger (108lb male) the female has not been weighed but looks much smaller.  He is from Glacier np and  was native to that area (not introduced lines). 
Both of the documented packs in WA are small, 5 animals in Diamond and 7 in the lookout pack.  They should be raising young now, so we'll see how many of the subadults hang around and how many disperse or die. 
I think the wolves we have now are native animals, they are not the McKenzie river valley animals everyone likes to scream about.

You do realize the wolf proposals don't say *censored* about subspecies? The whole reintroduction is entirely dependent upon downplaying the significance of most wolf subspecies. So if your telling us that you believe those wolves are a separate subspecies which is native to WA.......your standing on the 'Easy Button' jump on it and do us all a favor!

[wolfbait]

I guess you forget about that old saying, " you can *censored* the fans but not the players"

Why is it that the papers are always wrong according to wacoyote? 20 years ago the papers were wrong and now they are wrong again.

You are fun to debate the wolf issue with, sometimes I just let you step all over yourself before I say anything, and then poof yer gone.

I'm not sure you've debated anything wolfbait.  You make dumb jokes like the one above, and outrageous claims about conspiracies and wolf transplants but give no evidence to that effect.  To me, and to most rational folks, a newspaper article is not considered to be a 'scientific paper' as they are often inaccurate.  

If you want to make a claim, you need to be the one to prove it.  It is not up to me to prove that there was not a wolf plant in WA, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there was one...

Can you imagine writing a paper or report in the professional world without citing your 'facts'...you would get laughed out of the room.  SAVEelk, lobowatch, and Kat Urbigkit are not exactly credible sources...  Talk to a wolf biologist or someone that works with them to get information.  If you are on the right track then somewhere there will be legitimate documentation.  Find those sources to prove your point.  

(a newspaper article is not considered to be a 'scientific paper' as they are often inaccurate.)  

I didn't mean it as a joke wacoyote, you said that what was in the papers in the80's and 90's was BS, now you are saying that the papers of today made a mistake.  So what you are saying is, don't believe anything that the papers say unless we verify it with you first?

SAVEelk, lobowatch, and Kat Urbigkit are not exactly credible sources... Once again why do I bother with you?? The sites above have been dealing with the wolves far longer than Washington, they have seen, and showed without a doubt what the Canadian wolves have done. You on the other hand contribute nothing.

[haus]

I guess you forget about that old saying, " you can *censored* the fans but not the players"

Why is it that the papers are always wrong according to wacoyote? 20 years ago the papers were wrong and now they are wrong again.

You are fun to debate the wolf issue with, sometimes I just let you step all over yourself before I say anything, and then poof yer gone.

I'm not sure you've debated anything wolfbait.  You make dumb jokes like the one above, and outrageous claims about conspiracies and wolf transplants but give no evidence to that effect.  To me, and to most rational folks, a newspaper article is not considered to be a 'scientific paper' as they are often inaccurate. 

If you want to make a claim, you need to be the one to prove it.  It is not up to me to prove that there was not a wolf plant in WA, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that there was one...

Can you imagine writing a paper or report in the professional world without citing your 'facts'...you would get laughed out of the room.  SAVEelk, lobowatch, and Kat Urbigkit are not exactly credible sources...   Talk to a wolf biologist or someone that works with them to get information.  If you are on the right track then somewhere there will be legitimate documentation.  Find those sources to prove your point. 

Can you imagine calling yourself a wildlife biologist but only presenting preferencial facts to the public? You'd get laughed out of the room. Are you going to tell us that a majority percentage of the biologists studying these wolves are being entirely neutral and withholding any of their social or economic views from their reports? 

[jackelope]

isn't everyone only presenting preferencial facts?
is there anyone posting anything on here thats neutral?

[haus]

isn't everyone only presenting preferencial facts?
is there anyone posting anything on here thats neutral?

On here? lol there's no neutral facts on here. I'm refering to reports from biologists regarding their thorough studies. It seems there are just enough of them to give every side some ammunition 

[wolfbait]

Little something from another site, Montana 

Hay bobcat kid check out saveourelk.com. Yea wolves were here before but these are not the same wolves.  They are canadian timber wolves, much larger and have much larger feet, adapted to living on tundra.  It  is apparent  you have not seen the first hand damage that they cause.  In the winter when game is pushed in low spots and congregated they just kill one after another after another.  I have seen as many as 6 white tails dead in a quarter mile without a ounce of them eaten.  There is a reason our grand fathers got rid of them.  I could go on and on but what is the point, without having first hand knowledge I would just be talking to a deaf ear.  You know there is a problem when biologist are saying shoot shovel and shut up.  I am sure that there are a lot of people could back me up on this

http://www.taxidermy.net/forum/index.php/topic,200402.0.html

[WAcoyotehunter]

Can you imagine calling yourself a wildlife biologist but only presenting preferencial facts to the public? You'd get laughed out of the room. Are you going to tell us that a majority percentage of the biologists studying these wolves are being entirely neutral and withholding any of their social or economic views from their reports? 

Without speaking for the biologists that are working on the wolves in WA, I would guess that they are tired of being flamed (generally irrational rants) by the public for something they have no real control over.  They didn't put the wolves here, they're just trying to do their job and learn what they can about them.  Maybe there is bias, i suppose it would be easy to form...but I think the people (at least the field staff) are trying to do their best with the situation.

I guess the stuff I've seen from the agencies has been pretty accurate.  Without going into ridiculous conspiracy theories, what have they said that was untrue?  What evidence does anyone here have to refute their biology?   

The whole documentation thing is a challenge.  The agency can't really produce a news release about a wolf sighting...they needed to gather REAL information and document reproduction before they could 'go public'.  I'm doubtful that they ever denied having some wolves in the state.  Instead they were wary about making a claim of a pack when it wasn't reproducing.  I think they were right to err on the side of caution.   
 

[bearpaw]

A key issue on the confirming wolves issue is "confirmed breeding pairs" the language is very discriminating and does not allow the whole wolf population to be counted, therefore everyone is "estimating" how many wolves on the ground each "confirmed breeding pair" represents.

I do agree with both wacoyote and wolfbait on certain aspects of what they are each saying. The state must use proven data, but on the other side of the issue, the agencies have known wolf lovers who are manipulating the process in order to get as many wolves on the ground as possible.

One thing I am sure of, if we can't quit argueing amoungst ourselves, how can we ever get organized to get reasonable management. 

[wolfbait]

Personally I don't think we have any choice on what kind of management we end up with. When you have people in charge who will benefit from more wolves writing the wolf plan. I guess you can see my point there. You have a WDFW biologist who won't confirm livestock kills or wolf packs pointed out to him. This is just one great big joke to them. Not so funny for the rest of of us who like to hunt or sleep all night long without checking on stock. I guess we will see when the WA. wolf plan comes out, has anyone heard anything new on that?

[jackelope]

The simple fact of the matter is this...
If everyone would lose the friggin attitudes and we start working together...you know, the way we should be, we'd get a helllllllllllllllllll of a lot more accomplished. I don't know if some of you folks know the kind of knowledge and contacts there are at your disposal just with the folks on this site alone. Open your eyes a little and you'll see it. The attitudes and arguing and pissing and moaning that goes on here is ri*censored*diculous!!
There are farmers and ranchers, outfitters, biologists, there are people running trail cams for WDFW and whoever else trying to get the wolves on camera right here on this BB....everything that we need to make a difference right here. If you all could stop pissing in each other's cheerios we'd be a lot further ahead than where we are now.
Open your damn eyes people!