Wolf Wars have moved to Washington

[Huntnphish]

From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.

 You are correct, he has just not posted proof or facts 40 times is all .

[billythekidrock]

From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.

 You are correct, he has just not posted proof or facts 40 times in this thread.

And neither has most of the membership.

[WAcoyotehunter]

From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.

 You are correct, he has just not posted proof or facts 40 times in this thread.

And neither has most of the membership.

+1 having a different opinion is fine.  He has made intelligent arguments that make sense.  Posting Wikipedia cuts or newspaper articles doesn't mean much.  I think it's good that he's here and willing to voice his opinion. 

[whitney]

I'm a lurker here but wanted to provide some research I have done with regard to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife act that Workman mentions in his Examiner column. http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/controversial-wildlife-biologist-calls-wa-wolf-draft-plan-disgusting?CID=examiner_alerts_article

This particular tax applies to most hunters as we buy guns ammo and bows and arrows.  My line of questioning would be along the line of what exactly are these grants being spent on; and how does it "benefit" the folks paying the tax?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qVCWd9YOZU5G8MCOLU0Sl2nps7NbU2_8_VQNU9KcHUE/edit?hl=en_US  

~Whitney

[Bob33]

I'm a firm believer in allowing everyone to voice their opinion but I just checked this clowns posts since joining and its clear he is only on here to cause hate, discontent and stir the pot. I'm quite surprised the admin team has allowed him to spew his left wing, tree hugging rhetoric for this long.

 He has been asked repeatedly for facts and documentation yet only replies to posts where he can continue to stir the pot without contributing anything positive yet fly under the radar of the mods.

 I say send him packing with a link to that pinhead Cascades site, so the two of them can hold hands and sing kumbaya with the rest of the brown nose, tree hugging left wingers over there.

The moderators in general agree with your first statement about voicing opinions, and give wide latitude to a variety of opinions.  They also have little tolerance for name calling or personal attacks.

[robertg]

What does that prove? That 39 inch steelhead is always overstimated, a 300 class bull is usually in the 270 range, a 30 inch buck in usually no more then 25 inches wide??? The only native species of wolf is the timber wolf, a much smaller version.

The timberwolf is just another name for the gray wolf. There are 2 species of wolf in North America, the red wolf and the gray wolf. The gray wolf is sometimes called the timberwolf, but it is a gray wolf. The "native" wolf was not much smaller. The "native" wolf was 5-20 pounds smaller on average than the reintroduced gray wolves. Size is determined by diet.
BULL SH&T what about the Loafer Wolf, or the Red Wolf.  Your lack of knowledge and lies are seeping through.


seth, please reread my comment. I said there are 2 types of wolf found in north america and that is the gray wolf and the red wolf. The loafer wolf is a gray wolf.

[robertg]

From what I have read, he has posted no more (or less) facts or proof than any of the members.

 You are correct, he has just not posted proof or facts 40 times in this thread.

And neither has most of the membership.

+1 having a different opinion is fine.  He has made intelligent arguments that make sense.  Posting Wikipedia cuts or newspaper articles doesn't mean much.  I think it's good that he's here and willing to voice his opinion. 

I try to be as respectful and civil as I can to other posters on here despite having different views.

[dscubame]

why are you double posting?  Same post on two different threads.  Perhaps your a trouble maker and should move on.  referring to robertg.

[robertg]

The loafer wolf is the brown wolf.  A loaner, not a pack member. Saw plenty of them when I lived in Wyoming( 1988-1990)

"X canis lupus nubilus the Great Plains or "buffalo" wolf; extinct by 1926; usually light in color.
The "Buffalo Wolf", or the "Loafer" was originally the wolf subspecies known as Canis Lupus Nubilus which inhabited the Great Plains area of North America. Currently suggested revisions to wolf taxonomy, by Ron Nowak, are based less on geographical area and more on the determination of genetically distinct races or subspecies. The proposed revisions include most of the previously defined subspecies of gray wolves in North America as Canis Lupus Nubilus including the subspecies beothucus, crassodon, fuscus, udsonicus, irremotus, labradorius, lycaon (west of Michigan), ligoni, manningi, mogollonensis, monstrabilis, and youngi. Still, opinions on these classifications are not unanimous."

[robertg]

why are you double posting?  Same post on two different threads.  Perhaps your a trouble maker and should move on.  referring to robertg.

What do you mean double posting? I was responding to a comment seth made to me.

[hogsniper]

Keep up the debate robertg.  I personally enjoy taking a step back and seeing it in a different light.  If we are ever going to over come this problem we are going to have to be educated and understand the fight we have infront of us.  The SSS and invasive species comments are very ignorant as they do nothing for the cause.  Its a slippery slope we are on right now and I sure hope they get a hold on the problem before it gets any bigger.  The worst thing in my eyes is the untruthful acts and political b/s that has occured. Lets get some hard science behind this and move forward towards a management goal.   Probably never happen but we can only hope!   

[grundy53]

robertg, WFW & H-W does not condone illegal activity period. Is that clear or shall I type it again? Some people feel wolves should have not been released in the lower 48 States. Others feel betrayed because the organizations that you support did not abide by the agreed upon numbers of wolves. Delisting should have happened in 2003. If your side had allowed that instead of fundraising you could have had a lot of Hunting orientated organizations on your side. Wolves even with modern hunting would have continued to grow in numbers. If your side would allow for real science and not the rose colored versions you would admit there are 70,000 wolves in North America. You would admit that wolves will migrate 1000 miles. You would admit that if a wolf has sex Sandpoint Idaho and then migrates to the Spokane area with a pack in the Idaho/Washington area and should be counted for that area.Boarders are imaginary lines. But your side will not do this. You have pitted a usually quiet and slow to anger part of America against you. We will fight your false science. We will document how all of this came to be. I hope as time goes on we gather enough evidence to sue the Federal Government. As Washington Politics will be sympathetic to you and apathetic to us you will have time on your side for awhile. That is why keeping funding for nuisance animals inside the WDFW should be kept to a minimum. Seattle and it's burbs need to pay for it's own issues, they and their population created this. We need to force them to keep their own predators. It's not just wolves. It is the total mismanagement of wildlife that angers me. I'd venture most here. The anti predator hunting initiatives could be overturned. That would help some. In other states like Idaho the hands of the GAME Department have not been tied like here. That is the anger and the lack of trust. Clear?

This is exactly how I feel.

[Machias]

 
 
We do not stand a chance.  If you fellas cannot look at the past 15 years in WY, ID and MT and not see what is sure to happen on an even larger scale here,  we're toast, we really are.  I look at alot of the post and we have NO chance.  How many moose tags are they giving out this year?  How many do you think they will be handing out in 10 years?

[grundy53]

Who is paying for this reintroduction? The State, or federal level? Let me guess each State from the General funds contributed to from hunting and fishings licenses and permits. Then when they kill livestock reimbersement comes from the General fund once again.

The wolves are surely costing our state money, but to call it a "reintroduction" is wrong. The wolves came into the state on their own. The state is not reintroducing wolves, they are simply managing them. Just wanted to clarify that.

Actually it is a reintroduction. They were reintroduced into Idaho. Then came here. Ergo they were reintroduced.

[Jack Diamond]

So robertg, just a ignorant question, but why do you think the wolves were "exterminated" in the state of washington in the first place.
Pelts,bounty's,fear,ignorance?
not only in this state but adjoining states , and even the southwest?
I do not know your beliefs, but it has been assumed on this thread and elsewhere that most pro-wolf folks want to take hunting of wildlife out of existence, so I do not understand the end result, rather than hunting by humans,it is more Natures way to have animals kill lessor species until the dominant species is what is left. with no regard to seasons,limits or abundance, that natures way of controlling wildlife is the best? so an overabundance of smaller predators also will be addressed by a more aggressive specie, to what end when the most aggressive species is the only one left.
The reason that the wolves are such a big topic, is that very few folks alive today ever had to deal with them, our ancestors did and for some strange reason not only they but our government also determined that they were a problem to be rid of,and so they were eradicated, the same could be argued for Polio.