Post by: AspenBud on May 16, 2014, 09:18:44 AM
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/05/16/can-cats-save-us-dogs-taking-bite-out-millions-more-children-bitten-than-postal/ (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/05/16/can-cats-save-us-dogs-taking-bite-out-millions-more-children-bitten-than-postal/)
Post by: timberfaller on May 16, 2014, 09:35:41 AM
Because, wolves are warm and cuddly and make great house decorations for that country look!!
Post by: idahohuntr on May 16, 2014, 12:55:51 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2014, 02:52:22 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 16, 2014, 03:26:19 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 17, 2014, 11:46:54 AM
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2013/Tragic-Tally-More-Than-200-Reported-Child-Drownings-In-Pools-and-Spas-This-Summer/ (http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2013/Tragic-Tally-More-Than-200-Reported-Child-Drownings-In-Pools-and-Spas-This-Summer/)
Let's stop worrying about wolves because more people are killed in swimming pools and spas. This is as related as the one you posted. You two are unbelievable in your pandering to the pro-wolf movement.
Post by: timberfaller on May 17, 2014, 09:24:39 PM
Post by: snowpack on May 17, 2014, 10:01:44 PM
Hey piano, you don't see the sarcasm in my post?? My bumper sticker would be SSS!!SSS= smooch, squeeze and snuggle ??? :chuckle:
Post by: bigmacc on May 17, 2014, 11:05:46 PM
Post by: Romulus1297 on May 17, 2014, 11:19:02 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 18, 2014, 05:48:09 AM
Hey piano, you don't see the sarcasm in my post?? My bumper sticker would be SSS!!
Yes, I wasn't referring to your post, TF.
Post by: MADMAX on May 18, 2014, 07:11:24 AM
do the research boys
Post by: timberfaller on May 18, 2014, 08:51:40 AM
and pianoman, thanks! :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on May 18, 2014, 10:48:17 AM
What a surprise - another "don't worry about the wolves" thread. You two should be easily identifiable by the wolf decals on your cars. 8)
It amazes me that the agenda driven pro-wolf crowd still tries to down play the impact wolves and other uncontrolled predators will and are having on the ungulates in WA. on hunting sites. Perhaps if we hadn't already seen the destruction in other states they could get some traction among the gullible. The Pro-wolf crowd has a job to do for the environmentalists at the USFWS, USFS and state game agencies, convince everyone more habitat is needed not predator control.
Post by: MADMAX on May 18, 2014, 11:09:24 AM
totally welcome
I found that site years back wehn I hunted the bitterroots/ Darby area
Locals there know the full impact
Sh*t on sight
saw lots of tracks heard lots of howls
never got a shot at a legal elk
shame
I saw tracks this year over in the Colockum and heard howls at night
wont be long
Post by: bigmacc on May 18, 2014, 08:13:58 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 18, 2014, 09:57:56 PM
Maybe i,m not all the way to bright on this topicLooks like you nailed it right there :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2014, 10:22:32 PM
This whole topic was a pretty weak attempt to minimalize the impacts of wolves. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 18, 2014, 11:02:27 PM
This whole topic was a pretty weak attempt to minimalize the impacts of wolves. :chuckle:I don't think Aspen or anyone on here has any interest in minimizing impacts of anything...although it does break up the boring weak-minded attempts to drum up false hysteria about wolves by re-posting garbage circulated in Idaho 6-10 years ago :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on May 18, 2014, 11:04:57 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 19, 2014, 05:41:52 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 06:34:37 AM
"I don't think Aspen or anyone on here has any interest in minimizing impacts of anything..." Really? Because that's exactly what was intended by posting this article; minimizing the effect of wolves by citing statistics of dog attacks. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The article cited has nothing at all to do with wolves yet it was posted in the wolves section. If you don't see this is an attempt to minimize the negative impacts of wolves, you should see a neurosurgeon immediately. It's either a tumor or a large, unfilled cavity.
I'm guessing most "city" people recognize that they don't live in a sheltered country existence where wolves are the "big" concern.
When you go out and talk to people about wolves attacking scores of people or eating babies there is a reason they don't listen to you. The truth is not your friend is it?
Heck statistically you've already had a very good day if you survived the car ride to a location where you could encounter a wolf let alone be attacked by one.
Post by: snowpack on May 19, 2014, 08:09:23 AM
Post by: AspenBud on May 19, 2014, 08:46:02 AM
I think most of those derived statistics are for wolves living in areas with low human density. Have they really generated any meaningful sample sizes for wolves living in close proximity to an urban-yuppy population? Take Alpine Lakes for example...more people and dogs roaming through there than most can imagine. The Enchantments require a lottery draw many months in advance just to get a camping permit.
Just a guess, but I suspect this is what will happen to a lot of wolves in more truly populated areas...
http://www.kptv.com/story/21890303/cougar-dead-after-being-hit-on-i-5-in-wa (http://www.kptv.com/story/21890303/cougar-dead-after-being-hit-on-i-5-in-wa)
http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/jun/19/black-bear-dies-car-interstate-205-hit/ (http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/jun/19/black-bear-dies-car-interstate-205-hit/)
That doesn't even address parvo, various toxins, more people will firearms, cr** loads of dogs, etc.
Post by: bearpaw on May 19, 2014, 09:05:38 AM
"I don't think Aspen or anyone on here has any interest in minimizing impacts of anything..." Really? Because that's exactly what was intended by posting this article; minimizing the effect of wolves by citing statistics of dog attacks. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The article cited has nothing at all to do with wolves yet it was posted in the wolves section. If you don't see this is an attempt to minimize the negative impacts of wolves, you should see a neurosurgeon immediately. It's either a tumor or a large, unfilled cavity.
I'm guessing most "city" people recognize that they don't live in a sheltered country existence where wolves are the "big" concern.
When you go out and talk to people about wolves attacking scores of people or eating babies there is a reason they don't listen to you. The truth is not your friend is it?
Heck statistically you've already had a very good day if you survived the car ride to a location where you could encounter a wolf let alone be attacked by one.
The admission, I knew it was a lame attempt to minimize wolf impacts. :chuckle:
Post by: bigmacc on May 19, 2014, 06:05:11 PM
Maybe i,m not all the way to bright on this topicLooks like you nailed it right there :tup:
Well thank you for letting me know i got one right!...one point for me :tup: ...Think i "NAILED" this one also,and i quote "HIS VIEWS AND CONVERSATION SEEM(AT LEAST FOR ME)TO TIP THE SCALE TO THE WACKO SIDE OF WHICH HE HIMSELF IS ACCUSING OTHERS OF,ON THE FLIPSIDE"....hope this ones worth 2 points :tup: :tup:
Post by: hardrichard on May 19, 2014, 06:44:25 PM
Post by: kentrek on May 19, 2014, 07:24:25 PM
If atm we have cats an bears that can kill us, then add wolves...so our odds of getting eaten by a preditor go up by 50% ??? :chuckle:
Def gona be Rollin the dice stepping into the woods with those critters
:chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Claymore15 on May 19, 2014, 07:33:59 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 19, 2014, 08:09:09 PM
I don't post here much, and might have missed it but what are wolves good for in the modern age.
:bfg: Target practice.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on May 19, 2014, 08:35:32 PM
I don't post here much, and might have missed it but what are wolves good for in the modern age.
Nothing at all. :tup:
Post by: Claymore15 on May 19, 2014, 08:41:58 PM
Post by: snowpack on May 19, 2014, 08:55:04 PM
I don't post here much, and might have missed it but what are wolves good for in the modern age.Science experiments for biologists that aren't happy with a good thing and want to try something really radical to get their name out there.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 19, 2014, 10:16:28 PM
we have hunters that thin the herd, bears and coyotes and cougars, why add an another apex predator just my :twocents: if someone has another side I am willing to listenWashington didn't add wolves though...they migrated in from other states and B.C. They are now being forced to deal with an extraordinarily polarizing animal...unfortunately for most hunters Washington has a very liberal political base that is not so keen on hunting so WDFW is in an even tougher spot when it comes to managing wolves...especially compared to Idaho or Wyoming. :twocents:
Post by: Claymore15 on May 19, 2014, 10:44:50 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 20, 2014, 05:49:24 AM
we have hunters that thin the herd, bears and coyotes and cougars, why add an another apex predator just my :twocents: if someone has another side I am willing to listenWashington didn't add wolves though...they migrated in from other states and B.C. They are now being forced to deal with an extraordinarily polarizing animal...unfortunately for most hunters Washington has a very liberal political base that is not so keen on hunting so WDFW is in an even tougher spot when it comes to managing wolves...especially compared to Idaho or Wyoming. :twocents:
So that explains why WDFW are protecting predators and lying about the impacts on the ungulates and livestock. I bet WDFW were as shocked as everyone else when they discovered that wolves had traveled through several thousand acres of prime elk, deer, etc. habitat to settle in a few miles outside out Twisp. No wonder they refuse to confirm the lookout pack for so many years, they were in shock.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 20, 2014, 07:34:34 AM
I don't post here much, and might have missed it but what are wolves good for in the modern age.Science experiments for biologists that aren't happy with a good thing and want to try something really radical to get their name out there.
There are definitely those in the greenie community who would like to see wolves replace hunters as a game management tool and end big game hunting in this state. They don't care about the wolves. They want an end to hunting.
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 08:12:09 AM
This is were I am confused how can so many show up in this state by coming thru Canada and sportsman not shooting them as coyotes
I think you might be surprised at how many don't bother taking a shot at coyotes.
They didn't just show up from Canada. Idaho had their booming population that spilled over. If a wolf can wander from Oregon to California and back they can wander from Idaho or BC into Washington and back...or settle in. No conspiracy needed.
Post by: AspenBud on May 20, 2014, 08:33:33 AM
we have hunters that thin the herd, bears and coyotes and cougars, why add an another apex predator just my :twocents: if someone has another side I am willing to listenWashington didn't add wolves though...they migrated in from other states and B.C. They are now being forced to deal with an extraordinarily polarizing animal...unfortunately for most hunters Washington has a very liberal political base that is not so keen on hunting so WDFW is in an even tougher spot when it comes to managing wolves...especially compared to Idaho or Wyoming. :twocents:
So that explains why WDFW are protecting predators and lying about the impacts on the ungulates and livestock. I bet WDFW were as shocked as everyone else when they discovered that wolves had traveled through several thousand acres of prime elk, deer, etc. habitat to settle in a few miles outside out Twisp. No wonder they refuse to confirm the lookout pack for so many years, they were in shock.
You're a very strange individual. On one hand you want everyone to shoot shovel and shut up and on the other you want to be able to get the state to verify that you had a wolf eat a cow so you can get your handout. Double dip much? :chuckle: :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 09:07:47 AM
I don't post here much, and might have missed it but what are wolves good for in the modern age.Science experiments for biologists that aren't happy with a good thing and want to try something really radical to get their name out there.
There are definitely those in the greenie community who would like to see wolves replace hunters as a game management tool and end big game hunting in this state. They don't care about the wolves. They want an end to hunting.
:yeah: BINGO
Post by: wolfbait on May 20, 2014, 10:56:52 AM
we have hunters that thin the herd, bears and coyotes and cougars, why add an another apex predator just my :twocents: if someone has another side I am willing to listenWashington didn't add wolves though...they migrated in from other states and B.C. They are now being forced to deal with an extraordinarily polarizing animal...unfortunately for most hunters Washington has a very liberal political base that is not so keen on hunting so WDFW is in an even tougher spot when it comes to managing wolves...especially compared to Idaho or Wyoming. :twocents:
So that explains why WDFW are protecting predators and lying about the impacts on the ungulates and livestock. I bet WDFW were as shocked as everyone else when they discovered that wolves had traveled through several thousand acres of prime elk, deer, etc. habitat to settle in a few miles outside out Twisp. No wonder they refuse to confirm the lookout pack for so many years, they were in shock.
You're a very strange individual. On one hand you want everyone to shoot shovel and shut up and on the other you want to be able to get the state to verify that you had a wolf eat a cow so you can get your handout. Double dip much? :chuckle: :dunno:
Just stating the facts, WDFW in the past have refuse to confirm wolf killed livestock, we will see how it goes with the new wolf specialist. WDFW refuse to confirm wolf sighting that are obvious, they only confirm wolf packs when forced to do so, and they won't acknowledge the impact wolves and other predators are having on the ungulates.
You say handout? You sound like the defenders of wildlife crew, WDFW aren't in the confirming business as long as they can lie their way out of it. On top of that, history in other states have shown that one in nine livestock kills by wolves are confirmed, not to mention the weight loss from stress wolves have on cows when they have been chased or harassed by wolves.
Thanks to ID, MT and Wyoming who have gone through the same BS that WA is going through, there are several recipes that take care of wolves without pulling the trigger. Rumor has it, magic meatballs top the list.
Post by: Special T on May 20, 2014, 11:50:48 AM
Some of you need Iron clad proof as to what has happend regaurding wolves in order to belive that the WDFW is up to no good. That is fine, and your right. I think judging the WDFW ACTIONS is a better indication of what is going on than what they SAY they are doing. I can't tell you exactly why they are doing strange things, however the WDFW isn't helping themselves. HUNTERS should be the major supporters of the agency even if we have minor disagreements with them.
TRUST is a key factor. There have been very FEW issues that the WDFW has been forthcoming about in order to resolve them. When they have it has been around and individual that has worked really hard to bring everyone together. IMO the Individual earned the trust/respect NOT the agency.
I would LOVE to see Wolfbait draft out a time line of Wolf related events noted by his vast collection of 3rd party documentation. I would guess that his assertions would not seem so far fetched to many of you if laid out in that manner. Unfortunatly I don't think Wolfbait is the kind of person that likes/wants to hold each persons hand and give them the intimate blow by blow. I would bet Lunch that he would say "i've provided documentation that people can read and come to a logical conclusion. If they don't take the time,desire or inclination then they aren't too likely to be swayed by what i have to say or the facts i present."
Perhaps some of you that think Wolf bait is just a crazy old coot should just go back though is old posts and just see how many are clips or links to articles compared to his "Rants" :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 01:14:42 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2014, 01:57:10 PM
:yeah: You are correct Special T that wolfbait has provided more actual data and links to wolf data than anyone. Especially some of the guys calling him out who really never provide much data to support their arguments at all.Oh most definitely...I have been in awe of how much data he has presented on wdfw transplanting wolves. :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on May 20, 2014, 02:09:16 PM
:yeah: You are correct Special T that wolfbait has provided more actual data and links to wolf data than anyone. Especially some of the guys calling him out who really never provide much data to support their arguments at all.Oh most definitely...I have been in awe of how much data he has presented on wdfw transplanting wolves. :bash:
That's not really a fair statement. :dunno:
That issue is only one of the may things wolfbait has talked about. Not saying I agree with everything he writes, but he has provided more wolf data and evidence with links than anyone on this forum.
Post by: Special T on May 20, 2014, 05:04:09 PM
:yeah: You are correct Special T that wolfbait has provided more actual data and links to wolf data than anyone. Especially some of the guys calling him out who really never provide much data to support their arguments at all.Oh most definitely...I have been in awe of how much data he has presented on wdfw transplanting wolves. :bash:
Thank you for getting straight to the point. Your statement makes the difference between you and Wolfbait crystal clear. WB has placed the Dots as close together as he can for all of us. If they were any closer there would already be legal action.
Do you know how to spot a bad guy when you meet them? I must admit that i'm a little slow on this learning curve. I have been able to tell if some one is a bad person just by they way they talk, thier mannerisms, how they act and what they talk about. I may not have Physically SEEN this person do anything wrong or illegal but i KNOW they are a deadbeat. Some of us are better at reading people than others, many Leo's get LOTS of practice and have a good POS ID rate, others are slower learners.
While I may not share Wolfbaits Strong feelings bout the WDFW introducing wolves, I KNOW the WDFW is up to no good. WDFW actions prove they are not Hunters Champions they are another hurdle. What are some of these actions that speak louder than words for me?
1 They will take $ from CNW and other anti hunting groups to put up wolf poatcher rewards
2 They refused to let the Cattlemens association PAY for a trapper of thier choice to collar and document wolves, & a WDFW Bio could accompany the trapper
3 There is a uniform responce by nearly all WDFW agents responding to Wolf issues. "You MUST be mistaken, it had to be a Coyote, dog, hybrid etc."
4 All manner of predators are protected by the department beyond reason and good science. (There are numerous threads about this but my favorite example is some numbwhit trying to restrick coyote hunting to 22 cal rifles and bird shot.)
All of these points have been back up and can ber verified on THIS site, if you take the time to do some reading.
Idahohnter because you disagree with Wolfbait on the WDFW transplaning wolves Does not make the WDFW clean as the wind driven snow, Nor does it make him wrong in the other statements he has made.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2014, 05:17:37 PM
Idahohnter because you disagree with Wolfbait on the WDFW transplaning wolves Does not make the WDFW clean as the wind driven snow, Nor does it make him wrong in the other statements he has made.
[/quote]
Correct. But the same case can be made 4 WDFW. Some bad apples in the bunch does not mean the agency as a whole doesn't do a lot of good for hunters. I guess I would rather see hunters work with WDFW as opposed to constantly vilify ing them . I realize that is a 2 way street but much of what I have seen from wdfw folks is that they do care about hunters. unfortunately most of us don't see or fully understand the extraordinarily complex political issues they are faced with.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on May 20, 2014, 05:30:19 PM
There is a GREAT example of how the WDFW COULD work with hunters. Our Very Own Happy Gilmore worked with the New area manger to get the Cherry valley and stillwater units mowed at NO additional cost to the Department. It was such a NO BRAINER Im Surprised that it didn't happen earlier. IMO it just took some new blood with a different way of thinking.
Same kind of sucess COULD have happened with the Cattlemen Association paying for a trapper. The WDFW managed to screw up that no brainer unfortunatly.
Are there good people that work for the WDFW YES! I even know a couple of them, and THEY will tell you that plenty of the decisions made are from the top in direct oppositon to the foot soldiers who do the work.
Post by: bobcat on May 20, 2014, 06:03:17 PM
There are things I don't agree with and things I would do different if I were in charge, but overall we still have it pretty good.
As for the wolves, the WDFW didn't put them here, and I'm sure they would rather not have them here at all. So let's not blame them for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigmacc on May 20, 2014, 06:04:42 PM
There are other states that face issues and problems and manage to do great things. Since sportsmen PAY the department to MANAGE its game perhaps the WDFW should look at sportsmen as an ASSET instead of a hinderance.
There is a GREAT example of how the WDFW COULD work with hunters. Our Very Own Happy Gilmore worked with the New area manger to get the Cherry valley and stillwater units mowed at NO additional cost to the Department. It was such a NO BRAINER Im Surprised that it didn't happen earlier. IMO it just took some new blood with a different way of thinking.
Same kind of sucess COULD have happened with the Cattlemen Association paying for a trapper. The WDFW managed to screw up that no brainer unfortunatly.
Are there good people that work for the WDFW YES! I even know a couple of them, and THEY will tell you that plenty of the decisions made are from the top in direct oppositon to the foot soldiers who do the work.
Well said :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 20, 2014, 09:27:42 PM
This isn't the only state where all hunters don't agree with everything their wildlife department does. Of course in states with more wildlife relative to the number of people, complaints are naturally going to be less.:yeah:
There are things I don't agree with and things I would do different if I were in charge, but overall we still have it pretty good.
As for the wolves, the WDFW didn't put them here, and I'm sure they would rather not have them here at all. So let's not blame them for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, unlike a lot of western states WDFW gets about 15% of its money from the general fund, which means the general public (including non-hunters and I guess even anti-hunters) provide financial support to WDFW. This in turn means they have a larger and more diverse set of stakeholders to try and please. Its a big reason I have always supported tag fee increases when states like Idaho suggest meeting funding needs with the general fund.
Post by: Special T on May 21, 2014, 06:33:32 AM
As for the wolves, the WDFW didn't put them here, and I'm sure they would rather not have them here at all. So let's not blame them for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
While they didn't put them here they sure didn't do much to manage them. There are things they could have tired but failed. De-listing E WA, Real Trappers, The right to protect ones property sooner etc. Believe me when i say that i realize that the WDFW has a tough job, BUT ITS THEIR JOB! Their INACTION tell me much more about the Department than their Failure to accomplish something.
This isn't the only state where all hunters don't agree with everything their wildlife department does. Of course in states with more wildlife relative to the number of people, complaints are naturally going to be less.:yeah:
There are things I don't agree with and things I would do different if I were in charge, but overall we still have it pretty good.
As for the wolves, the WDFW didn't put them here, and I'm sure they would rather not have them here at all. So let's not blame them for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, unlike a lot of western states WDFW gets about 15% of its money from the general fund, which means the general public (including non-hunters and I guess even anti-hunters) provide financial support to WDFW. This in turn means they have a larger and more diverse set of stakeholders to try and please. Its a big reason I have always supported tag fee increases when states like Idaho suggest meeting funding needs with the general fund.
First off that 15% is a VERY small slice and I would GLADLY invest more of my time and $ if we were not tied to the General Population. That 15% isn't supposed to give every bunny hugger a place at the table. It is to fund the Mandates set by the Legislature. Have you read The Posts by BigTex that talk about how the legislature throws ANYTHING to do with animals the WDFW's way? It appears to me that Hunters are not being treated like they foot 85% of the bill. :twocents:
Post by: jackmaster on May 21, 2014, 06:59:19 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 09:01:30 AM
That 15% is something like 60 million...also I think they get revenue from a lot of other non-traditional sources, but not positive. I'm not saying hunters shouldn't be their primary focus and I actually believe that we are...however, it explains why they have more "requirements" and stakeholders to please than most any other f&w agency in the west. Again, I don't support it, but it maybe explains why they are more responsive to some of the bunny huggers :dunno: I will gladly pay more for an elk or deer tag in Idaho if it means keeping away from the general fund. :twocents:
First off that 15% is a VERY small slice and I would GLADLY invest more of my time and $ if we were not tied to the General Population. That 15% isn't supposed to give every bunny hugger a place at the table. It is to fund the Mandates set by the Legislature. Have you read The Posts by BigTex that talk about how the legislature throws ANYTHING to do with animals the WDFW's way? It appears to me that Hunters are not being treated like they foot 85% of the bill. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 09:41:33 AM
for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho :dunno: you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing :dunno: :tup:More fan mail I see :chuckle:
First, do you hunt in Idaho? If you do you should know that most of the state is actually doing really well. This is not lipservice to try and minimize impacts of wolves...there are areas (and certainly some of the moose areas up in N.Idaho) that have taken a hit. In fact where I killed my moose I would not put in for that hunt today. However, wolves are declining and we've had some pretty mild winters and there is a ton of good elk hunting in Idaho. Go read bearpaws central idaho report if you haven't already.
Second, I'm not a wolf lover. I don't subscribe to a lot of the trumped up hysteria and bogus conspiracies (nearly all of which were being floated in Idaho 6-10 years ago) about how wolves will exterminate all the elk and eat the children etc. I am a huge supporter of state based wolf management - wolves need to be hunted and managed by professionals just like all other species of wildlife. I was much more anti-wolf (if you want to call it that) in the early 2000's in Idaho, but after seeing how everything played out there I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared. Depending on if, and where, you hunt in Idaho I understand folks may have different perspectives. I hunt a large number of areas in Idaho...not just one place and so I may have a broader view than some :dunno:
Third, I am very much a hunter and it is something I'm very passionate about. My family has a long history of hunting and its a heritage I'm proud of. I spend significant portions of my time, energy, and money engaging in activities that I believe are important to protecting the hunting heritage. Sometimes I am lock-step with the "herd"...other times I am not. I think there is too much focus on wolves in WA, I don't like the continuing trend of making hunting a rich mans sport, I think there are lots of areas for WDFW to improve, I think WDFW has a very, very tough job, I think sportsmen need to find ways to support and work with wdfw as opposed to constantly bashing them, and a whole host of other issues. I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly call me an anti-hunter or an imposter because they disagree with some position I have on these issues. It makes me wonder if you have ever met an anti-hunter.
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 10:17:08 AM
for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho :dunno: you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing :dunno: :tup:More fan mail I see :chuckle:
First, do you hunt in Idaho? If you do you should know that most of the state is actually doing really well. This is not lipservice to try and minimize impacts of wolves...there are areas (and certainly some of the moose areas up in N.Idaho) that have taken a hit. In fact where I killed my moose I would not put in for that hunt today. However, wolves are declining and we've had some pretty mild winters and there is a ton of good elk hunting in Idaho. Go read bearpaws central idaho report if you haven't already.
Second, I'm not a wolf lover. I don't subscribe to a lot of the trumped up hysteria and bogus conspiracies (nearly all of which were being floated in Idaho 6-10 years ago) about how wolves will exterminate all the elk and eat the children etc. I am a huge supporter of state based wolf management - wolves need to be hunted and managed by professionals just like all other species of wildlife. I was much more anti-wolf (if you want to call it that) in the early 2000's in Idaho, but after seeing how everything played out there I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared. Depending on if, and where, you hunt in Idaho I understand folks may have different perspectives. I hunt a large number of areas in Idaho...not just one place and so I may have a broader view than some :dunno:
Third, I am very much a hunter and it is something I'm very passionate about. My family has a long history of hunting and its a heritage I'm proud of. I spend significant portions of my time, energy, and money engaging in activities that I believe are important to protecting the hunting heritage. Sometimes I am lock-step with the "herd"...other times I am not. I think there is too much focus on wolves in WA, I don't like the continuing trend of making hunting a rich mans sport, I think there are lots of areas for WDFW to improve, I think WDFW has a very, very tough job, I think sportsmen need to find ways to support and work with wdfw as opposed to constantly bashing them, and a whole host of other issues. I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly call me an anti-hunter or an imposter because they disagree with some position I have on these issues. It makes me wonder if you have ever met an anti-hunter.
If everyone in Idaho had your viewpoint that you have now " I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared" then there wouldn't have been such pro-active management and the whole SSS mantra. The hysteria drove wolf management to where there is a decline of wolves and good hunting in areas.
We need a
That hysteria you frown upon and condemn was so powerful in Idaho it drove politics and wolf management (including SSS and State management) to levels that you now benefit from by having decent hunting in certain parts of the state.
The hysteria is also driving politics in Washington, but on a much smaller scale. Pretty much stopping at the county level.
In Idaho the hysteria reached all the way to the governor with Butch Otter capitalizing on it, this is what we need in Washington!
If we drummed up the same hysteria in WA as Idaho we could finally get a new anti-wolf governor in office and effect some real change within WDFW, change that would last wellbeyond the seated anti-wolf governor.
Post by: arees on May 21, 2014, 10:41:01 AM
That 15% is something like 60 million...also I think they get revenue from a lot of other non-traditional sources, but not positive. I'm not saying hunters shouldn't be their primary focus and I actually believe that we are...however, it explains why they have more "requirements" and stakeholders to please than most any other f&w agency in the west. Again, I don't support it, but it maybe explains why they are more responsive to some of the bunny huggers :dunno: I will gladly pay more for an elk or deer tag in Idaho if it means keeping away from the general fund. :twocents:
First off that 15% is a VERY small slice and I would GLADLY invest more of my time and $ if we were not tied to the General Population. That 15% isn't supposed to give every bunny hugger a place at the table. It is to fund the Mandates set by the Legislature. Have you read The Posts by BigTex that talk about how the legislature throws ANYTHING to do with animals the WDFW's way? It appears to me that Hunters are not being treated like they foot 85% of the bill. :twocents:
I hate to bring facts into a hunt-wa discussion, but here you go...
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fabout%2Fbudget%2Fgraphics%2F2014mar27%2Ft_slide1.jpg&hash=be1a953f4be98752c9234932ecdb18387783f52c)
There is more information here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/). They will also tell you something about how they are spending the money. It looks like WDFW is trying to keep this information well hidden by putting it up on their website.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 11:08:55 AM
You're simply wrong. The hysteria in Idaho did not drive anything. It created huge rifts among sportsmen and hamstrung IDFG and their ability to manage as they wanted too all along. It set us back far more than it helped and it chewed up huge amounts of time and money and took the focus off other very important issues. There was no pro-wolf element that needed squashed in Idaho. De-listing stuff was accomplished not by the hysterical fringe crowd but by the reasoned folks. All the real whack jobs screaming the loudest actually tried to de-rail the efforts to attach a rider to an appropriations bill to de-list wolves in ID and MT. I still don't understand why, and the only thing that makes sense is those fringe groups make money off the controversy and so they have no real interest in solving the problem. :dunno: Absolutely no different than the enviro crowd. The "hysteria" is not how we got to where we are in ID today, it is because of stand up guys like Mike Simpson and Jon Tester and an IDFG commission that did not cower to the anti-wolf fringe folks. Nor did they cower to the fringe enviro crowd from out of state. So, if you ever feel compelled to thank folks for the wolf management we see in Idaho today please write Simpson and Tester. Maybe send a note to the IDFG commissioners who stayed the course and swatted down nut jobs like Scott Rockholm at most IDFG commission meetings. Otter is deserving of some praise too...he forced the feds hand when wolves were re-listed.for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho :dunno: you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing :dunno: :tup:More fan mail I see :chuckle:
First, do you hunt in Idaho? If you do you should know that most of the state is actually doing really well. This is not lipservice to try and minimize impacts of wolves...there are areas (and certainly some of the moose areas up in N.Idaho) that have taken a hit. In fact where I killed my moose I would not put in for that hunt today. However, wolves are declining and we've had some pretty mild winters and there is a ton of good elk hunting in Idaho. Go read bearpaws central idaho report if you haven't already.
Second, I'm not a wolf lover. I don't subscribe to a lot of the trumped up hysteria and bogus conspiracies (nearly all of which were being floated in Idaho 6-10 years ago) about how wolves will exterminate all the elk and eat the children etc. I am a huge supporter of state based wolf management - wolves need to be hunted and managed by professionals just like all other species of wildlife. I was much more anti-wolf (if you want to call it that) in the early 2000's in Idaho, but after seeing how everything played out there I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared. Depending on if, and where, you hunt in Idaho I understand folks may have different perspectives. I hunt a large number of areas in Idaho...not just one place and so I may have a broader view than some :dunno:
Third, I am very much a hunter and it is something I'm very passionate about. My family has a long history of hunting and its a heritage I'm proud of. I spend significant portions of my time, energy, and money engaging in activities that I believe are important to protecting the hunting heritage. Sometimes I am lock-step with the "herd"...other times I am not. I think there is too much focus on wolves in WA, I don't like the continuing trend of making hunting a rich mans sport, I think there are lots of areas for WDFW to improve, I think WDFW has a very, very tough job, I think sportsmen need to find ways to support and work with wdfw as opposed to constantly bashing them, and a whole host of other issues. I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly call me an anti-hunter or an imposter because they disagree with some position I have on these issues. It makes me wonder if you have ever met an anti-hunter.
If everyone in Idaho had your viewpoint that you have now " I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared" then there wouldn't have been such pro-active management and the whole SSS mantra. The hysteria drove wolf management to where there is a decline of wolves and good hunting in areas.
We need alittlea LOT more hysteria in Washington. We'll never be as pro-active as Idaho and thus will suffer more for it.
That hysteria you frown upon and condemn was so powerful in Idaho it drove politics and wolf management (including SSS and State management) to levels that you now benefit from by having decent hunting in certain parts of the state.
The hysteria is also driving politics in Washington, but on a much smaller scale. Pretty much stopping at the county level.
In Idaho the hysteria reached all the way to the governor with Butch Otter capitalizing on it, this is what we need in Washington!
If we drummed up the same hysteria in WA as Idaho we could finally get a new anti-wolf governor in office and effect some real change within WDFW, change that would last wellbeyond the seated anti-wolf governor.
In Washington, you have a very different set of circumstances and what you are suggesting would backfire in a tremendous way IMO. You will not yell louder, outvote, or outspend the anti's in this state. Vastly different political landscape...its actually scary to think about how easily the people of this state could strip more hunting rights from us. This is why I think WDFW is such an important ally...they are walking a tight-rope for us.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 11:11:31 AM
That 15% is something like 60 million...
I hate to bring facts into a hunt-wa discussion, but here you go...
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fabout%2Fbudget%2Fgraphics%2F2014mar27%2Ft_slide1.jpg&hash=be1a953f4be98752c9234932ecdb18387783f52c)
[/quote]
Ooops...it is 16% and 60.8 million, not 15% and 60 million. :sry:
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 11:31:17 AM
You're simply wrong. The hysteria in Idaho did not drive anything. It created huge rifts among sportsmen and hamstrung IDFG and their ability to manage as they wanted too all along. It set us back far more than it helped and it chewed up huge amounts of time and money and took the focus off other very important issues. There was no pro-wolf element that needed squashed in Idaho. De-listing stuff was accomplished not by the hysterical fringe crowd but by the reasoned folks. All the real whack jobs screaming the loudest actually tried to de-rail the efforts to attach a rider to an appropriations bill to de-list wolves in ID and MT. I still don't understand why, and the only thing that makes sense is those fringe groups make money off the controversy and so they have no real interest in solving the problem. :dunno: Absolutely no different than the enviro crowd. The "hysteria" is not how we got to where we are in ID today, it is because of stand up guys like Mike Simpson and Jon Tester and an IDFG commission that did not cower to the anti-wolf fringe folks. Nor did they cower to the fringe enviro crowd from out of state. So, if you ever feel compelled to thank folks for the wolf management we see in Idaho today please write Simpson and Tester. Maybe send a note to the IDFG commissioners who stayed the course and swatted down nut jobs like Scott Rockholm at most IDFG commission meetings. Otter is deserving of some praise too...he forced the feds hand when wolves were re-listed.for someone that calls them self idahohntr it seems you would be totally against wolves, especially after witnessing the impact they have had on the elk and moose in idaho :dunno: you and other wolf lovers just dont get it, wolves were taken out of the mix by people with a hell of alot more common sense than the leaders of today, you cannot compare todays lands to yesteryear lands, canada and alaska are vastly differant places then the lower 48.... you call yourself a hunter yet you will be at the head of the line crying up a storm when there are no elk left to hunt, if in fact your a hunter and not a wolf lover in hunters clothing :dunno: :tup:More fan mail I see :chuckle:
First, do you hunt in Idaho? If you do you should know that most of the state is actually doing really well. This is not lipservice to try and minimize impacts of wolves...there are areas (and certainly some of the moose areas up in N.Idaho) that have taken a hit. In fact where I killed my moose I would not put in for that hunt today. However, wolves are declining and we've had some pretty mild winters and there is a ton of good elk hunting in Idaho. Go read bearpaws central idaho report if you haven't already.
Second, I'm not a wolf lover. I don't subscribe to a lot of the trumped up hysteria and bogus conspiracies (nearly all of which were being floated in Idaho 6-10 years ago) about how wolves will exterminate all the elk and eat the children etc. I am a huge supporter of state based wolf management - wolves need to be hunted and managed by professionals just like all other species of wildlife. I was much more anti-wolf (if you want to call it that) in the early 2000's in Idaho, but after seeing how everything played out there I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared. Depending on if, and where, you hunt in Idaho I understand folks may have different perspectives. I hunt a large number of areas in Idaho...not just one place and so I may have a broader view than some :dunno:
Third, I am very much a hunter and it is something I'm very passionate about. My family has a long history of hunting and its a heritage I'm proud of. I spend significant portions of my time, energy, and money engaging in activities that I believe are important to protecting the hunting heritage. Sometimes I am lock-step with the "herd"...other times I am not. I think there is too much focus on wolves in WA, I don't like the continuing trend of making hunting a rich mans sport, I think there are lots of areas for WDFW to improve, I think WDFW has a very, very tough job, I think sportsmen need to find ways to support and work with wdfw as opposed to constantly bashing them, and a whole host of other issues. I find it ridiculous that anyone could possibly call me an anti-hunter or an imposter because they disagree with some position I have on these issues. It makes me wonder if you have ever met an anti-hunter.
If everyone in Idaho had your viewpoint that you have now " I no longer believe they will have the widespread devastating impacts I originally feared" then there wouldn't have been such pro-active management and the whole SSS mantra. The hysteria drove wolf management to where there is a decline of wolves and good hunting in areas.
We need alittlea LOT more hysteria in Washington. We'll never be as pro-active as Idaho and thus will suffer more for it.
That hysteria you frown upon and condemn was so powerful in Idaho it drove politics and wolf management (including SSS and State management) to levels that you now benefit from by having decent hunting in certain parts of the state.
The hysteria is also driving politics in Washington, but on a much smaller scale. Pretty much stopping at the county level.
In Idaho the hysteria reached all the way to the governor with Butch Otter capitalizing on it, this is what we need in Washington!
If we drummed up the same hysteria in WA as Idaho we could finally get a new anti-wolf governor in office and effect some real change within WDFW, change that would last wellbeyond the seated anti-wolf governor.
In Washington, you have a very different set of circumstances and what you are suggesting would backfire in a tremendous way IMO. You will not yell louder, outvote, or outspend the anti's in this state. Vastly different political landscape...its actually scary to think about how easily the people of this state could strip more hunting rights from us. This is why I think WDFW is such an important ally...they are walking a tight-rope for us.
I'm not wrong
Of course the hysteria will have to be tempered somewhat where it matters in making rules, sound reasoning is always the best course of action. I'm not saying we should making rules based on the fringes on either side - right now all the rules are being made by the extremist fringe CNW and other activists much to the determent of Washington hunters. I'd love to have it move a little closer to the middle, perhaps in favor of our ungulate herds.
WDFW isn't walking a tight rope for us, far from it. They're making asinine predator plans for WA...You a fan of the cougar plan too? You a fan of WA's wolf plan? You a fan of how WDFW is running the hound permits for cats? walking a tight rope pffft :rolleyes:
You'll never convince me that public sentiment didn't drive politics in Idaho, far from it. No movement in politics ever came without public pressure, something we're lacking in Washington.
You're flat wrong on this.
Post by: bigmacc on May 21, 2014, 08:09:23 PM
we have hunters that thin the herd, bears and coyotes and cougars, why add an another apex predator just my :twocents: if someone has another side I am willing to listenWashington didn't add wolves though...they migrated in from other states and B.C. They are now being forced to deal with an extraordinarily polarizing animal...unfortunately for most hunters Washington has a very liberal political base that is not so keen on hunting so WDFW is in an even tougher spot when it comes to managing wolves...especially compared to Idaho or Wyoming. :twocents:
Ok,lets say the wolves did migrate into this state,i think his original question was(from his earlier post) what are wolves good for in this day and age? What is there purpose in washington state in particular? His statement in THIS post was"we have hunters to thin the herd,bears and coyotes and cougars,why add another apex predator"..I tend to agree with claymore15,s statement(why add another apex predator) and i also partly agree with yours, that they migrated here(tho i am not 100 percent sure on that).His question and statement are SIMPLE and to the point....Do you still think there possibly may not be an agenda?I,m sure others have asked these questions on this site,but really what is a wolfs purpose in this day and age in washington state?..Bottom line,why do some want them here?Why do groups and individuals want the wolf?..Why cant we get rid of them,why wont they LET us get rid of them? If you think about these simple questions "idaho" you can possibly see why alot of people think that there IS an anti hunting agenda in progress. Not everyone are "black helicoptor guys" or "2nd shooter" folks,some just look at things the way they see them and ask themselves a few simple questions.With todays game management, hunting and an already abundant crop of very capible predators that have been here for a long time and are thriving,-why do we REALLY need another apex predator in this state?
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 09:01:20 PM
With respect to "agendas": Are there ways green groups and anti-hunters are using the ESA, the wolf, the spotted owl, salmon, you name it to achieve a larger agenda? Absolutely. The more "preservationist" members of society believe that humans are an intrusion into the environment and preservation/reserve/refuge systems are their goal. Keep human influence out or minimize it as much as possible is their stance.
I absolutely believe that special interest groups have all kinds of ideas about how they can use state and federal laws, policies, and politicians to push their agenda. Where I draw the line is when folks, with no proof, suggest that entire government agencies are in collusion and spearheading major cover ups and felonies on a systematic basis to eliminate hunting rights/opportunity etc. Greenie, anti-hunting groups are the enemy...WDFW is not...even if they have some bad apples and make mistakes, they are not the enemy...wolves are not here because WDFW asked for them. WDFW does not have the authority or ability to exterminate wolves. WDFW has to manage them though, along with all the other wildlife in the state...not an easy job.
I think that largely addresses your questions. I could go on and on about early conservation and natural resource management efforts, utilitarian perspectives, rise of environmentalism and preservation management, uses and abuses of ESA etc. etc. but I won't bore you any further.
If you ever find yourself incarcerated in the state penal system for a felony conviction I occasionally teach a night class in the old gray bar hotel on Conservation and Natural Resource Management. :chuckle:
Post by: bigmacc on May 21, 2014, 09:14:22 PM
Fair question. It is a philosophical matter...what species have a "right" to exist? If they cause humans harm should we eliminate them? In 1973 congress passed and the president signed into law the current Endangered Species Act which basically said we shall not let any species go extinct and should work to reverse their declines. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation and so the federal government is responsible for ensuring survival of all species "whatever the cost". So the question of "what are they good for?" is irrelevant when it comes to ESA and federal law. They don't have to be good for anything.
With respect to "agendas": Are there ways green groups and anti-hunters are using the ESA, the wolf, the spotted owl, salmon, you name it to achieve a larger agenda? Absolutely. The more "preservationist" members of society believe that humans are an intrusion into the environment and preservation/reserve/refuge systems are their goal. Keep human influence out or minimize it as much as possible is their stance.
I absolutely believe that special interest groups have all kinds of ideas about how they can use state and federal laws, policies, and politicians to push their agenda. Where I draw the line is when folks, with no proof, suggest that entire government agencies are in collusion and spearheading major cover ups and felonies on a systematic basis to eliminate hunting rights/opportunity etc. Greenie, anti-hunting groups are the enemy...WDFW is not...even if they have some bad apples and make mistakes, they are not the enemy...wolves are not here because WDFW asked for them. WDFW does not have the authority or ability to exterminate wolves. WDFW has to manage them though, along with all the other wildlife in the state...not an easy job.
I think that largely addresses your questions. I could go on and on about early conservation and natural resource management efforts, utilitarian perspectives, rise of environmentalism and preservation management, uses and abuses of ESA etc. etc. but I won't bore you any further.
If you ever find yourself incarcerated in the state penal system for a felony conviction I occasionally teach a night class in the old gray bar hotel on Conservation and Natural Resource Management. :chuckle:
Dont plan on attending that class any time soon :chuckle:...I may not agree with everything you have to say,but hey this is america!...thanks for your response.
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 09:39:53 PM
Fair question. It is a philosophical matter...what species have a "right" to exist? If they cause humans harm should we eliminate them? In 1973 congress passed and the president signed into law the current Endangered Species Act which basically said we shall not let any species go extinct and should work to reverse their declines. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation and so the federal government is responsible for ensuring survival of all species "whatever the cost". So the question of "what are they good for?" is irrelevant when it comes to ESA and federal law. They don't have to be good for anything.
BS - Canada is full of them, AK is full of them and the NE is full of them as well. We don't need them here, especially this sub-species we got now.
With respect to "agendas": Are there ways green groups and anti-hunters are using the ESA, the wolf, the spotted owl, salmon, you name it to achieve a larger agenda? Absolutely. The more "preservationist" members of society believe that humans are an intrusion into the environment and preservation/reserve/refuge systems are their goal. Keep human influence out or minimize it as much as possible is their stance.
Whoa - back the train up, you just said there was no agenda that it's law but you contradict yourself here - there IS an agenda. It's call anti-hunting, anti-grazing anti-human in the outdoors in any capacity other than parks.
I absolutely believe that special interest groups have all kinds of ideas about how they can use state and federal laws, policies, and politicians to push their agenda.
......and you're one of them to be sure, a wolf in sheep's clothing. You've nothing to gain by your constant presence on the wolf forums, yet you're here continually pushing an agenda.
Where I draw the line is when folks, with no proof, suggest that entire government agencies are in collusion and spearheading major cover ups and felonies on a systematic basis to eliminate hunting rights/opportunity etc. Greenie, anti-hunting groups are the enemy...WDFW is not...even if they have some bad apples and make mistakes, they are not the enemy...wolves are not here because WDFW asked for them. WDFW does not have the authority or ability to exterminate wolves. WDFW has to manage them though, along with all the other wildlife in the state...not an easy job.
BS! - WDFW asked for and got the most asinine wolf plan of any western state. All the other states fought hard to get their wolf plan approved via USFWS and ESA requirements. WDFW capitulated, and now has an unworkable wolf plan requiring far too many wolves.
I think that largely addresses your questions. I could go on and on about early conservation and natural resource management efforts, utilitarian perspectives, rise of environmentalism and preservation management, uses and abuses of ESA etc. etc. but I won't bore you any further.
If you ever find yourself incarcerated in the state penal system for a felony conviction I occasionally teach a night class in the old gray bar hotel on Conservation and Natural Resource Management. :chuckle:
At least the inmates you teach too probably won't ever hunt having a lifetime weapons ban against them.
Post by: JLS on May 21, 2014, 09:50:36 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 10:05:00 PM
So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? :rolleyes:
I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 10:12:17 PM
I always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".
Well I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion?
Conservation NorthWest has been pulling the strings on the wolf plan, they even gave WDFW permission to kill the wedge wolves and took a ton of flack for it and since apologized to their membership and other wolf activist groups. They since vowed to never let that happen again, and WDFW subsequently stated the same thing.
Idahohunter is a big fan of WDFW's handling of the wolf, read his posts he's in lockstep agreement with WDFW on the wolf issue. He might not agree with WDFW on other issues, but he's nut deep in the wolf plan.
I dunno JLS, but to me it doesn't pass the duck test.
Post by: Bob33 on May 21, 2014, 10:12:36 PM
I always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 10:16:24 PM
ESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself.
So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? :rolleyes:
I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.
I'm saying CNW and WDFW RE: wolves.... are one in the same, and you're a big fan of that partnership.
CNW = agenda and by proxy you likewise = agenda
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 10:18:11 PM
I always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.
are you talking to me Bob33? Because I got some doozy quotes to toss up if you are.
Can I get banned for quoting a post that should have gotten it's author banned?
Post by: bearpaw on May 21, 2014, 10:34:13 PM
ESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself.
So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? :rolleyes:
I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.
Your logic doesn't hold water. WDFW created and put into place a more liberal wolf plan than any other western state, forcing 15 BP's into a state that is geographically smaller, far more populated than the other states, and with smaller herds to support the wolves. On top of that, no area can be managed until wolves populated all three areas of the state. I cannot see how that can be considered "the biggest ally" we have regarding the wolf issue. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 10:39:49 PM
I don't rubberstamp wdfw actions...their existing wolf plan is flawed IMO. It could be worse, it could be better. It must be nice for you to sit in la la land and pretend wdfw operates in a vacuum...in reality wolf management is extremely political...wdfw is not our enemy in wolf management. If they were, they would have no problem steam rolling all the little rural folks up in NE Washington and wouldn't even propose moving towards de-listing.
The only agenda I push is something along the lines of advocating for policies favorable to the average, diy public land hunter. Go check out Randy Newberg...I will push his "agenda" all day long. Oh and for conservation groups...I'm pretty much lock-step with RMEF. As for these other agendas you suggest that I'm pushing...those only exist in your mind.
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 10:49:13 PM
KF- for somebody who knows nothing about me or who I am you sure like to put a lot of words in my mouth.
Dude, you put the words out there for all to see.
I don't rubberstamp wdfw actions...their existing wolf plan is flawed IMO. It could be worse, it could be better. It must be nice for you to sit in la la land and pretend wdfw operates in a vacuum...in reality wolf management is extremely political...wdfw is not our enemy in wolf management. If they were, they would have no problem steam rolling all the little rural folks up in NE Washington and wouldn't even propose moving towards de-listing.
Didn't you just argue that wolf hysteria in Idaho had nothing to do with the political climate or wolf control? WDFW is our enemy when they implement a crazy wolf plan with very little input and when they did come out to visit for public input they were...ummm well less than forthcoming :chuckle:
The only agenda I push is something along the lines of advocating for policies favorable to the average, diy public land hunter. Go check out Randy Newberg...I will push his "agenda" all day long. Oh and for conservation groups...I'm pretty much lock-step with RMEF. As for these other agendas you suggest that I'm pushing...those only exist in your mind.
Quote
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports the science-based management of wolves and other predators.
Please tell me again how WDFW is using science-based management regarding our predators, I'd LOVE to hear this...Although you just did state that wolves were more of a political fight than a science-based management fight....Not sure how that fits into RMEF's stance on wolves. Your position fits much better with CNW than RMEF
Here is Mr. Allen
Quote
“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. "To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.
When asked about the utility of predator-prey relationships, Allen explained, “Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie. It isn’t real.” Under his leadership, the Elk Foundation recently offered the state of Montana $50,000 to contract with the federal Wildlife Services agency to “aggressively” kill more wolves. “And the next step is the grizzly bear,” he said. “We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring -- both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds, and sell hunting tags and generate revenue.”
Post by: JLS on May 21, 2014, 10:57:09 PM
The only agenda I push is something along the lines of advocating for policies favorable to the average, diy public land hunter. Go check out Randy Newberg...I will push his "agenda" all day long. Oh and for conservation groups...I'm pretty much lock-step with RMEF. As for these other agendas you suggest that I'm pushing...those only exist in your mind.
Oh come on, Randy Newberg is in bed with the anti-hunters! I know it's true, I read it on the internet. :)
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 10:58:46 PM
Yes, WDFW, which manages the wildlife in one of the most liberal states in the U.S. does have a more liberal wolf plan than other states. I also do not agree with the part of the plan that requires BPs in all three areas of the state before state de-listing...maybe wdfw did this because they think wolves are neat :dunno: I think a better guess is they knew they needed a plan that they could sell to wolf lovers...probably because if they didn't appease that group in some fashion the legislature or governors office would do it for them :yike:ESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself.
So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? :rolleyes:
I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.
Your logic doesn't hold water. WDFW created and put into place a more liberal wolf plan than any other western state, forcing 15 BP's into a state that is geographically smaller, far more populated than the other states, and with smaller herds to support the wolves. On top of that, no area can be managed until wolves populated all three areas of the state. I cannot see how that can be considered "the biggest ally" we have regarding the wolf issue. :twocents:
My point about them being our biggest ally is that they manage the wildlife in this state, and while they are sensitive and more responsive to political realities than many of us hunters would like, I think they also look for ways to do good things for hunters in an extremely challenging political environment.
Post by: JLS on May 21, 2014, 11:00:34 PM
I always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.
I've simply grown to accept it, particularly on wolf threads. It always becomes quite obvious when objectivity and the ability to read goes out the window, and is replaced by emotion and arguing what you think you are reading.
Post by: bobcat on May 21, 2014, 11:23:01 PM
Yes, WDFW, which manages the wildlife in one of the most liberal states in the U.S. does have a more liberal wolf plan than other states. I also do not agree with the part of the plan that requires BPs in all three areas of the state before state de-listing...maybe wdfw did this because they think wolves are neat :dunno: I think a better guess is they knew they needed a plan that they could sell to wolf lovers...probably because if they didn't appease that group in some fashion the legislature or governors office would do it for them.
This reminds me of a WDFW meeting I attended in Olympia in which the wolf plan was one of the topics, and this was just before it was officially adopted. A gentleman there got up to speak and addressed the Commission, and pleaded with them to not approve the wolf plan as written. He said 15 breeding pairs weren't nearly enough and that the minimum number needed was double that. He asked them to increase it to 30 breeding pairs. :yike:
This is what the WDFW is up against. :o
Post by: KFhunter on May 21, 2014, 11:23:28 PM
I always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.
I've simply grown to accept it, particularly on wolf threads. It always becomes quite obvious when objectivity and the ability to read goes out the window, and is replaced by emotion and arguing what you think you are reading.
I think I read that Idahohntr is in lockstep with REMF - and I can get behind this article.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-offers-to-finance-more-aggressive-wolf/article_18f6cc20-7222-11e1-a853-001871e3ce6c.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-offers-to-finance-more-aggressive-wolf/article_18f6cc20-7222-11e1-a853-001871e3ce6c.html)
Quote
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation leaders want state wildlife officials to get more aggressive about wolf control, and they’ve offered at least $50,000 to make it happen.
“We are not utilizing anywhere near to the fullest of what the wolf management plan authorizes,” RMEF president David Allen said on Monday. “The go-slow, take-it-easy approach is not working.”
Quote
Allen said his group wants to see reductions in black bears, mountain lions and coyotes as well as wolves to help the state’s struggling ungulate populations. Wolves, lions and bears are blamed for falling populations of elk in several parts of Montana, while coyotes are a threat to eastern Montana deer and antelope populations that have also suffered major disease outbreaks.
“This is where this all starts to domino if you don’t keep predators managed,” Allen said. “And the next step is the grizzly bear. We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring – both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds and sell hunting tags and generate revenue that supports FWP nearly 100 percent.”
But I gotta say, it doesn't sound like the Idahohntr I been reading lately - did someone hack his account?
Post by: idahohuntr on May 21, 2014, 11:44:05 PM
Yep, predators, like all other wildlife need managed. Again, you seem to be falsely implying I don't support predator management. RMEF is largely a habitat protection organization...their primary focus is conserving and enhancing habitat for elk and other wildlife. I consistently make the point of how important habitat issues are to wildlife. Randy Newberg is on the Board of Directors of RMEF...I'm a huge supporter of his views on wildlife management...he often rails against fringe groups like lobowatch, BGF, and SFW. :tup:I always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.
I've simply grown to accept it, particularly on wolf threads. It always becomes quite obvious when objectivity and the ability to read goes out the window, and is replaced by emotion and arguing what you think you are reading.
I think I read that Idahohntr is in lockstep with REMF - and I can get behind this article.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-offers-to-finance-more-aggressive-wolf/article_18f6cc20-7222-11e1-a853-001871e3ce6c.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-offers-to-finance-more-aggressive-wolf/article_18f6cc20-7222-11e1-a853-001871e3ce6c.html)QuoteRocky Mountain Elk Foundation leaders want state wildlife officials to get more aggressive about wolf control, and they’ve offered at least $50,000 to make it happen.
“We are not utilizing anywhere near to the fullest of what the wolf management plan authorizes,” RMEF president David Allen said on Monday. “The go-slow, take-it-easy approach is not working.”QuoteAllen said his group wants to see reductions in black bears, mountain lions and coyotes as well as wolves to help the state’s struggling ungulate populations. Wolves, lions and bears are blamed for falling populations of elk in several parts of Montana, while coyotes are a threat to eastern Montana deer and antelope populations that have also suffered major disease outbreaks.
“This is where this all starts to domino if you don’t keep predators managed,” Allen said. “And the next step is the grizzly bear. We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring – both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds and sell hunting tags and generate revenue that supports FWP nearly 100 percent.”
But I gotta say, it doesn't sound like the Idahohntr I been reading lately - did someone hack his account?
Perhaps you should read this article posted on RMEF's website applauding WDFW's common-sense approach to utilizing a Montana pilot approach to wolf management: http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/PredatorManagementControl/BugleArticles/WashingtonWolves.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/PredatorManagementControl/BugleArticles/WashingtonWolves.aspx)
Post by: fair-chase on May 21, 2014, 11:45:57 PM
The only agenda I push is something along the lines of advocating for policies favorable to the average, diy public land hunter. Go check out Randy Newberg...I will push his "agenda" all day long. Oh and for conservation groups...I'm pretty much lock-step with RMEF. As for these other agendas you suggest that I'm pushing...those only exist in your mind.
Oh brother, you just stirred up a hornest nest now. Don't you know Randy Newberg is alligned with the most vial of all [anti]hunting groups....Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (gasp). Any man caught referencing BCHA on this forum shall be hung for sedition. Any man actually caught contributing to BCHA will be shot for desertion. :chuckle:
Do not fret. There is redemption for even the most unholy purveyor of DIY public land hunters. All that is required to purge yourself of this unconscionable alliance is a small contribution to Don Peay, Lifetime membership to SFW, and a willingness to wear or display BGF or MacMillan River Adventures (your choice) brand merchandise. Furthermore, you must publicly denounce the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. After you have completed these steps you are free to discuss your opinion on all matters pertaining to wolves, as long as they conform to the ideas set forth by the agencies listed above.
***Disclaimer - You agree not to hold me personally responsible for any and all charges (past, present, and future) related to affiliation with aforementioned groups. Including; but not limited to; tax evasion, embezzlement, money laundering, and criminal co-conspiracy*** :chuckle:
Post by: JLS on May 22, 2014, 05:10:07 AM
The only agenda I push is something along the lines of advocating for policies favorable to the average, diy public land hunter. Go check out Randy Newberg...I will push his "agenda" all day long. Oh and for conservation groups...I'm pretty much lock-step with RMEF. As for these other agendas you suggest that I'm pushing...those only exist in your mind.
Oh brother, you just stirred up a hornest nest now. Don't you know Randy Newberg is alligned with the most vial of all [anti]hunting groups....Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (gasp). Any man caught referencing BCHA on this forum shall be hung for sedition. Any man actually caught contributing to BCHA will be shot for desertion. :chuckle:
Do not fret. There is redemption for even the most unholy purveyor of DIY public land hunters. All that is required to purge yourself of this unconscionable alliance is a small contribution to Don Peay, Lifetime membership to SFW, and a willingness to wear or display BGF or MacMillan River Adventures (your choice) brand merchandise. Furthermore, you must publicly denounce the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. After you have completed these steps you are free to discuss your opinion on all matters pertaining to wolves, as long as they conform to the ideas set forth by the agencies listed above.
***Disclaimer - You agree not to hold me personally responsible for any and all charges (past, present, and future) related to affiliation with aforementioned groups. Including; but not limited to; tax evasion, embezzlement, money laundering, and criminal co-conspiracy*** :chuckle:
Enough details, where can I get a list of the auction tags? :)
Post by: Special T on May 22, 2014, 07:15:00 AM
ESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself.
So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? :rolleyes:
I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.
That is simply NOT true. The actions of the WDFW demonstrate that. You must of missed my previous posts. Please review them because there is a small list of things they COULD have done or tried that would make them an "Ally". They simply are not, and to say so is absurd. What are you basing that statement on?
Post by: bobcat on May 22, 2014, 07:43:40 AM
I'm sure a lot of their decisions and methods of management (or non-management) have to do with nothing more than that.
One of their biggest problems is a severe lack of funding.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 22, 2014, 09:00:37 AM
Who manages the wildlife in this state? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.ESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself.
So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? :rolleyes:
I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.
That is simply NOT true. The actions of the WDFW demonstrate that. You must of missed my previous posts. Please review them because there is a small list of things they COULD have done or tried that would make them an "Ally". They simply are not, and to say so is absurd. What are you basing that statement on?
I believe they very much have sportsmens interests at heart...but they also have to pursue those interests through a minefield of political pitfalls that folks like you and I probably don't really see very clearly...and yes, occassionally they stumble. But in the end if sportsmen are not supportive of WDFW the greenies win. As Bobcat pointed out, the greenies don't like the wolf plan either...they want 2x as many wolves :yike:
Post by: KFhunter on May 22, 2014, 09:11:23 AM
So why did you gloss over RMEF's CEO David Allens stance on wolves??
Quote
“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. “To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.
Seems like this is in opposition to everything you and JLS have said on HW.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 22, 2014, 09:31:10 AM
IdahohntrDo you have more context for this quote? When was it provided and where is it printed? Where is the rest of the story?
So why did you gloss over RMEF's CEO David Allens stance on wolves??Quote“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. “To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.
Seems like this is in opposition to everything you and JLS have said on HW.
If what you have pasted is the entirety of the quote and context then I do not agree with him. Wolves have not been the worst "ecological disaster" because state based management is working quite well. If the quote came from 2008/2009 when there was still a lot of back and forth between feds vs. state managing wolves in ID/MT I understand completely why he would have said that. If its real recent, then I disagree.
When he says wolves are annihilating and decimating elk herds is he talking specific herds (which I agree) or all elk herds in ID and MT (I would disagree)?
On his statements about the need for states to control wolf populations and hunt them...completely agree. His statement about gassing their dens...not appropriate...if he did say that I will bet you PR staff had a long chat with him afterwards.
Again, I don't let perfect be the enemy of good. RMEF has conserved and enhanced 6+ million acres of wildlife habitat. They have increased focus on finding ways to increase access to hunting land for diy guys lately. They support state based wolf management - meaning they support WDFW!, IDFG, MTFWP, WYGF...Habitat, Access, and supporting state wolf management...yep looks like I'm still lock step with RMEF views on what is important.
Oh, and as even further evidence of how aligned I am with that organization...a while back Allen wrote an open letter basically requesting that conservation organizations not fleece sportsmen and steal public resources. It was basically a big shot at that fraud group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW)...its a great read and I'm glad Allen called out those scumbags :tup:
Post by: JLS on May 22, 2014, 09:58:44 AM
Idahohntr
So why did you gloss over RMEF's CEO David Allens stance on wolves??Quote“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. “To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.
Seems like this is in opposition to everything you and JLS have said on HW.
Everything I have said on here is either based on direct personal experience and observation, or quantifiable data. I have attached links to published documents that support my statements.
I have freely admitted that at one point, I shared an opinion very similar to Allen's statement. I feared the worst. However, many years later, my opinions have changed.
Post by: wolfbait on May 22, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
Yep, predators, like all other wildlife need managed. Again, you seem to be falsely implying I don't support predator management. RMEF is largely a habitat protection organization...their primary focus is conserving and enhancing habitat for elk and other wildlife. I consistently make the point of how important habitat issues are to wildlife. Randy Newberg is on the Board of Directors of RMEF...I'm a huge supporter of his views on wildlife management...he often rails against fringe groups like lobowatch, BGF, and SFW. :tup:I always find it ironic and amusing that when folks speak to their real world experiences, and they don't coincide with and confirm the biases that people have, then it becomes "pushing an agenda".Unfortunately, I don't find it amusing but rather sad and distasteful. Name calling and branding always weaken an argument.
I've simply grown to accept it, particularly on wolf threads. It always becomes quite obvious when objectivity and the ability to read goes out the window, and is replaced by emotion and arguing what you think you are reading.
I think I read that Idahohntr is in lockstep with REMF - and I can get behind this article.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-offers-to-finance-more-aggressive-wolf/article_18f6cc20-7222-11e1-a853-001871e3ce6c.html (http://missoulian.com/news/local/rocky-mountain-elk-foundation-offers-to-finance-more-aggressive-wolf/article_18f6cc20-7222-11e1-a853-001871e3ce6c.html)QuoteRocky Mountain Elk Foundation leaders want state wildlife officials to get more aggressive about wolf control, and they’ve offered at least $50,000 to make it happen.
“We are not utilizing anywhere near to the fullest of what the wolf management plan authorizes,” RMEF president David Allen said on Monday. “The go-slow, take-it-easy approach is not working.”QuoteAllen said his group wants to see reductions in black bears, mountain lions and coyotes as well as wolves to help the state’s struggling ungulate populations. Wolves, lions and bears are blamed for falling populations of elk in several parts of Montana, while coyotes are a threat to eastern Montana deer and antelope populations that have also suffered major disease outbreaks.
“This is where this all starts to domino if you don’t keep predators managed,” Allen said. “And the next step is the grizzly bear. We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring – both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds and sell hunting tags and generate revenue that supports FWP nearly 100 percent.”
But I gotta say, it doesn't sound like the Idahohntr I been reading lately - did someone hack his account?
Perhaps you should read this article posted on RMEF's website applauding WDFW's common-sense approach to utilizing a Montana pilot approach to wolf management: http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/PredatorManagementControl/BugleArticles/WashingtonWolves.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/PredatorManagementControl/BugleArticles/WashingtonWolves.aspx)
"A delegation from WDFW including Phil Anderson, director, and Dave Ware, game division manager, spent two days in November touring the Blackfoot with staff from the Blackfoot Challenge and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The Blackfoot Challenge is a nonprofit cooperative centered in the Blackfoot Valley that helps forge partnerships in an effort to “conserve and enhance the natural resources and rural way of life throughout the watershed.” http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/PredatorManagementControl/BugleArticles/WashingtonWolves.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/PredatorManagementControl/BugleArticles/WashingtonWolves.aspx)
Lets take a little look at who and what the Blackfoot Challenge is all about: http://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/llcpractitionersnetwork/blackfoot-challenge.dot (http://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/llcpractitionersnetwork/blackfoot-challenge.dot)
About the Current Project
2013-14 Speakers Series--------------------------------------Pull this link up and take a little peek! http://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/speakerseries/ (http://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/speakerseries/)
Conservation in the West Annual Survey
Source to Sea and Down the Colorado Expeditions
Report Card
Conference
Partners
Alumni
News
Support the Project
Archives
Contact
Practitioners' Network for Large Landscape Conservation
Blackfoot Challenge
Practitioners Network for Large Landscape Conservation
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Thompson Divide Coalition
So WDFW will ignore the wolf history from Idaho, Wyoming and the rest of Montana in favor of those who associate with "environmental" groups who support Ted Turner etc.. That's no shock to me, look at WDFW's wild lands plan for the next thirty years. No Mention of Hunting what so ever. WDFW Wild Lands Project: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150293.225.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,150293.225.html)
I might remind a few folks, that the RMEF sat on their hands for 14 years and said nothing as the wolves decimated the game herds in ID, MT and Wyoming. WDFW etc. can buy up as much land as they wish, but unless they wolf fence their habitat it will end up with as many ungulates as the rest of the country that has uncontrolled predators. In a predator pit or worse.
"Along with swift response to any depredations, the key to sustaining successful relations between humans and predators in the Blackfoot Valley is the host of preventative measures employed jointly by landowners, public land management agencies and nonprofits. These methods include high-voltage electric fencing around livestock calving areas, fladry (a visual type of fencing where colored flags are hung from wire), prompt removal of livestock carcasses, guard dogs and a range rider program."
Which has been proven not to work. The USFWS have stated in the past that the only way to stop wolf predation on livestock is to kill all the wolves responsible including full packs right down to the pups, a practice the USFWS started early on in Wyoming.
We have already established that WDFW are not allowing enough hunting of predators such as cougars and bears to control the population. Throw an uncontrolled wolf population in on top and it is only a matter of time before hunting slows to a halt.
“Being long-distance travelers, wolves can be very difficult to find and keep track of,” says Liz Bradley, regional wolf management specialist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. ”Gathering wolf sighting reports from the public has been invaluable in gaining a better understanding of wolf distribution in the area.”
I think most of us figured out early on how WDFW would manage wolves when they selected their wolf working group, stacked with agenda driven pro-wolfers. And then when the bogus wolf plan was passed, we knew WDFW had nailed the door shut on any kind of wolf control.
Look at WA today, six years later we are still not delisted, but then how could we be when WDFW refuse to acknowledge wolf sightings, and refuse to confirm livestock kills? WDFW are a joke in many counties that now have wolves, a very sad joke.
Post by: Special T on May 23, 2014, 07:32:08 AM
I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = AdvocateWho manages the wildlife in this state? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.ESA is federal law. Anti-hunter groups use ESA to push agendas. Those two are not mutually exclusive. Those are just facts. I did not contradict myself.
So what agenda am I pushing? Are we back to these silly accusations that I'm an anti-hunter? Really? :rolleyes:
I stand by what I said about WDFW. They are not the enemy, they are the biggest ally we have in this state when it comes to wolf management and future deer and elk hunting. If you can't accept that I guess you can sit on the sidelines and complain about why other groups and organizations have more say about how wildlife is managed than you do. Suit yourself.
That is simply NOT true. The actions of the WDFW demonstrate that. You must of missed my previous posts. Please review them because there is a small list of things they COULD have done or tried that would make them an "Ally". They simply are not, and to say so is absurd. What are you basing that statement on?
I believe they very much have sportsmens interests at heart...but they also have to pursue those interests through a minefield of political pitfalls that folks like you and I probably don't really see very clearly...and yes, occassionally they stumble. But in the end if sportsmen are not supportive of WDFW the greenies win. As Bobcat pointed out, the greenies don't like the wolf plan either...they want 2x as many wolves :yike:
“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
Abraham Lincoln quotes (American 16th US President (1861-65),
Post by: KFhunter on May 23, 2014, 10:10:49 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 23, 2014, 10:55:58 AM
I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state. I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen. You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could. Its not. Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state?? :chuckle:
I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate
Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority. Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000. Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue. They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state. We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them. If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better :tup:
Post by: bobcat on May 23, 2014, 11:00:27 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 23, 2014, 12:25:22 PM
I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state. I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen. You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could. Its not. Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state?? :chuckle:
I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate
Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority. Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000. Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue. They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state. We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them. If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better :tup:
"Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority. Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000"
I would have to disagree with you, if more people would have gotten "riled" over the bogus wolf plan we might not have ended up with what we have today.
How much worse will hunting get with WDFW protecting predators instead of controlling them? How many years will it take for the WDFW to admit the impact uncontrolled predators are having on the game herds?
If WDFW were managing the game herds they would have liberal hunting seasons on cougars/bears and they would surely be in favor of confirming wolf packs, confirming livestock kills, and wolf packs. But that doesn't seem to be happening does it?
"If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better"
Many people have>SS
Post by: VarmintVentilator on May 23, 2014, 03:32:27 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 24, 2014, 06:56:44 AM
IdahohntrDo you have more context for this quote? When was it provided and where is it printed? Where is the rest of the story?
So why did you gloss over RMEF's CEO David Allens stance on wolves??Quote“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. “To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.
Seems like this is in opposition to everything you and JLS have said on HW.
If what you have pasted is the entirety of the quote and context then I do not agree with him. Wolves have not been the worst "ecological disaster" because state based management is working quite well. If the quote came from 2008/2009 when there was still a lot of back and forth between feds vs. state managing wolves in ID/MT I understand completely why he would have said that. If its real recent, then I disagree.
When he says wolves are annihilating and decimating elk herds is he talking specific herds (which I agree) or all elk herds in ID and MT (I would disagree)?
On his statements about the need for states to control wolf populations and hunt them...completely agree. His statement about gassing their dens...not appropriate...if he did say that I will bet you PR staff had a long chat with him afterwards.
Again, I don't let perfect be the enemy of good. RMEF has conserved and enhanced 6+ million acres of wildlife habitat. They have increased focus on finding ways to increase access to hunting land for diy guys lately. They support state based wolf management - meaning they support WDFW!, IDFG, MTFWP, WYGF...Habitat, Access, and supporting state wolf management...yep looks like I'm still lock step with RMEF views on what is important.
Oh, and as even further evidence of how aligned I am with that organization...a while back Allen wrote an open letter basically requesting that conservation organizations not fleece sportsmen and steal public resources. It was basically a big shot at that fraud group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW)...its a great read and I'm glad Allen called out those scumbags :tup:
A once-proud conservation group has lost its way
Recently, the family of Olaus J. Murie demanded that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation cancel the organization’s Olaus J. Murie Award. The surprising reason? The foundation’s “all-out war against wolves is anathema to the entire Murie family.”
I sympathize with the family’s position for several reasons. In 1999, while working for the Elk Foundation, I created the Olaus J. Murie Award, with the coordination and the approval of the Murie family. The award recognized scientists working on behalf of elk and elk habitat and was given in the name of Olaus J. Murie because he is widely considered the “father” of modern elk research.
Murie, who did groundbreaking work at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyo., in the 1940s, also wrote Elk of North America, the first comprehensive and scientific treatise on elk and elk management.
During most of its 28-history, the Elk Foundation and its more than 185,000 members, who are primarily hunters, avoided controversy. Instead, the group focused on its mission: “To ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat.” Most of the foundation’s leaders had solid backgrounds in wildlife biology, ecology and wildlife management, and they resisted the occasional pressure from hunters to get involved in issues such as gun rights or wolf reintroduction.
“We are not a hunting organization supporting conservation; we are a conservation organization supported by hunters,” former foundation director Gary Wolfe used to say.
But starting in 2000, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s board of directors changed, many staff members were fired, and the nonprofit group went through a string of short-term directors. Then in 2007, the foundation board hired David Allen, a former marketer for NASCAR and the Pro Rodeo Cowboys Association, as its director. At first, it seemed that Allen would follow a path similar to former leaders.
“We are not a hunting club. We don’t intend to be a hunting club. We are a membership organization that has an overwhelming number of hunters … but we’re not doing wildlife conservation to improve our hunting,” Allen said when he took on the job. That approach did not last long.
“Wolf reintroduction is the worst ecological disaster since the decimation of bison herds,” Allen said recently, as he claimed that wolves are “decimating” and “annihilating” elk herds. "To keep wolf populations controlled, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens,” he said.
When asked about the utility of predator-prey relationships, Allen explained, “Natural balance is a Walt Disney movie. It isn’t real.” Under his leadership, the Elk Foundation recently offered the state of Montana $50,000 to contract with the federal Wildlife Services agency to “aggressively” kill more wolves. “And the next step is the grizzly bear,” he said. “We’ve got bear issues with elk calves in the spring -- both grizzly and black bear. We can’t have all these predators with little aggressive management and expect to have ample game herds, and sell hunting tags and generate revenue.”
This approach has not gone over well with some conservationists. Ralph Maughan, director of the Western Watersheds Project and the Wolf Recovery Foundation, said that foundation director “Allen has not only taken a strongly anti-wolf position, but he has done it taking an ‘in your face’ way to traditional conservation organizations such as those supported by Olaus Murie, which he now calls ‘extremist.’” “Allen has also expressed contempt for many of the concepts of ecology, as he seems to be moving the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation toward a single species, single value of elk (hunting) approach.”
There has been a lot of good, solid research on elk and wolf interactions, some of it funded by the Elk Foundation in years past. Most of it that shows that when wolves are restored to an ecosystem, both habitat and elk herds improve. Allen’s claims are not backed by science.
“Mr. Allen and his anti-wolf rhetoric has alienated him and his organization from many of the very organizations that have helped the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation — in subtle and profound ways — garner the successes it has over the years,” said Bob Ferris, a 30-year wildlife researcher who was involved in bringing wolves back to the Yellowstone ecosystem.
The family of Olaus J. Murie, the “father” of modern elk research and management, agrees with these criticisms. A foundation that once understood the complex relationship between elk and wolves has succumbed to the pressures of hunters who don’t like wolves.
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/a-once-proud-conservation-group-has-lost-its-way (http://www.hcn.org/wotr/a-once-proud-conservation-group-has-lost-its-way)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
But starting in 2000, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s board of directors changed, many staff members were fired>WDFW needs an overhaul. :tup:
Murie Family Cautions Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Over Anti-Wolf Rhetoric
http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/735/51/Press-Release-Murie-Family-Cautions-Rocky-Mountain-Elk-Foundation-Over-Anti-Wolf-Rhetoric/d,News2 (http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/735/51/Press-Release-Murie-Family-Cautions-Rocky-Mountain-Elk-Foundation-Over-Anti-Wolf-Rhetoric/d,News2)
Post by: wolfbait on May 24, 2014, 07:30:28 AM
POSTED: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010 12:00 AM
By Cory Hatch, Jackson Hole, Wyo. | 0 comments
The controversy over wolf management in Greater Yellowstone is polarizing conservation groups that might normally work together to protect the region’s wildlife.
The rift recently manifested itself in a series of letters and statements in which the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation expressed frustration with Defenders of Wildlife and the Western Wildlife Conservancy, and vice versa. In the letters, the groups accuse each other of misrepresenting elk population data to serve their own political ends.
The groups further accuse each other of using the wolf controversy to spur donations from supporters.
The hard-line approach comes as outfitters in Wyoming continue to organize rallies that call for wolf hunts because, they say, the predators have killed too many elk and moose in the state.
Conservation groups and outfitters say the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, in particular, has moved toward tougher language against wolves in recent years.
“The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, they’re getting some pressure from their members big-time,” said B.J. Hill, a Kelly outfitter who has helped organize some of the wolf rallies. “It’s definitely coming from people like me. They’re also looking at the data. It’s starting to show ... that these populations are falling. We outfitters are pro-wildlife. We like some predators. It’s about management. [The environmental groups] have got to quit suing and help us out.”
Clark Allan, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commissioner from Jackson, used to donate one of the eight licenses he gets as a commissioner to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The licenses, granted to commissioners by state statute, are typically auctioned by the receiving wildlife group for as much as $10,000.
After donations to the Elk Foundation in 2007 and 2008, Allan withheld the licenses in 2009 and 2010. Instead, he increased the number of licences he donated to Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a group that has taken a harder stance against wolves in recent years.
When Allan was asked if he withheld the donations from the foundation because of his concerns about its stance on wolves, he said, “I’m very confident that Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s position has nothing to do with what I think.”
“I send the tags where I think they’ll be of greatest benefit,” Allan said. “I think the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is doing a good job and stepping up to the plate. That’s a change, of course, from what they were doing before. I am impressed with the stance that the elk foundation is taking. Their change in position has been coming about for a long time.”
Allan said he has not yet decided which groups will receive his commissioner’s licenses next year.
A stronger stance on wolves
David Allen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation president and CEO, acknowledged that his group has adopted a stronger stance on wolves by emphasizing their impacts on elk herds and advocating for management through hunting.
“The overwhelming majority of the membership of the Elk Foundation has always had a position that wolves need to be seriously managed like other predators,” he said. “We had a small group of senior [managers] who choose not to take any position, which has been perceived as taking a softer position.”
“I wasn’t here then,” Allen continued. “[The senior managers] were trying to be neutral, I guess. The results that we have now are from people trying to be neutral. The pro-wolf people have moved the goal line. It’s been intellectually dishonest. That’s why, for this organization, I try to take a firmer stance. Let’s start managing wildlife the way it’s supposed to be managed. We’re not proposing an annihilation of wolves, but we’re not going to sit by and watch a serious annihilation of elk either.”
Craig Kenworthy, conservation director of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, said the organization has worked with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in the past and hopes to continue working with it in the future, despite differences on some issues such as wolves and elk feedgrounds.
“It’s a situation where they do a lot of good work on habitat,” he said. “Where we have a common agenda of wildlife management, we want to do that.”
Kenworthy said the coalition often works with groups on specific issues, even when they disagree on other topics “or even opposite sides of litigation.”
Kenworthy acknowledged that the coalition has also modified its stance on wolves. When wolves were temporarily first delisted in 2008, the group opted not to litigate and said it would work with the states on managing the predator. However, when wolves were delisted a second time last year, but only in Montana and Idaho, the group joined a lawsuit against delisting.
“What made the difference for us was splitting Wyoming off,” he said. “We think that sets a dangerous precedent for us. They’re an ecosystem population, and they need to be managed that way.”
Delisting the wolf in Wyoming, and therefore the lawsuit itself, hinges on state legislation that mandates a predator zone that encompasses all but the northwest corner of the state. In the predator zone, wolves could be killed at any time without a license. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service previously approved a Wyoming wolf management plan with such a predator zone, the agency has since said Wyoming’s plan must be modified to consider wolves as trophy game in the entire state.
Wyoming outfitters and ranchers say the predator zone is needed to protect the state’s big game and wildlife.
The recent round of letters started when Defenders of Wildlife and the Western Wildlife Conservancy used text from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Web site to make the case that elk populations in Greater Yellowstone are healthy. In late February, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation officials blasted Defenders of Wildlife and the Western Wildlife Conservancy for “their disingenuous use of data on wolves and elk.”
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/wolf-controversy-polarizes/article_e7c8afed-b6dc-5e8a-8fd1-85d8842115ff.html (http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/wolf-controversy-polarizes/article_e7c8afed-b6dc-5e8a-8fd1-85d8842115ff.html)
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)
Post by: Special T on May 24, 2014, 09:33:07 AM
I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state. I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen. You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could. Its not. Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state?? :chuckle:
I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate
Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority. Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000. Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue. They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state. We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them. If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better :tup:
I'm not so ignorant to think that the WDFW Director could make that statement, And your condescension about my knowledge of this states politics is noted. I'm a Westsider and my family has likely been here as long as yours has been in ID. I make factual statements and point out the discrepancies as i see them.
WDFW is MANDATED to use good science to fulfill its mission. If you think that stating the FACTS equals antagonizing groups like CNW or DoW then the WDFW cannot be effective. WDFW has gone out of its way NOT to make comments that are backed by scientific MGT that refute Anti-hunting nonsence. Hound hunting and Baiting ARE better hunting methods for MGT, yet the Department remains silent. There are other examples as well.
We agree that WDFW has challenges, but if they do not even attempt to correct false assumptions based on fact how can we consider them our Alley or Champion? The answer is we CANNOT!
I have asked the question several times WHAT has the WDFW done (actions) to show they are a, supporter, advocate, friend of sportsmen? All I have heard are Crickets, or the excuse that there are politics involved. Perhaps many of you are content with a Department that only plays defense to slow the demise of our hunting in this state. I am not one of those people.
The solution is to speak the truth, and use the scientific FACTS that the WDFW is supposed to be following to support hunters. That does not mean they need to pick fights, insult people or be antagonistic. What is does mean is they cannot hide in the shadows hoping what they do and say will go unnoticed by BOTH sides.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 24, 2014, 11:15:19 AM
Well, if you are familiar with WA politics then it should be obvious why WDFW can't manage wolves like Idaho. I don't know how much simpler I can make that point for you.I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state. I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen. You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could. Its not. Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state?? :chuckle:
I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate
Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority. Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000. Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue. They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state. We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them. If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better :tup:
I'm not so ignorant to think that the WDFW Director could make that statement, And your condescension about my knowledge of this states politics is noted. I'm a Westsider and my family has likely been here as long as yours has been in ID. I make factual statements and point out the discrepancies as i see them.
WDFW is MANDATED to use good science to fulfill its mission. If you think that stating the FACTS equals antagonizing groups like CNW or DoW then the WDFW cannot be effective. WDFW has gone out of its way NOT to make comments that are backed by scientific MGT that refute Anti-hunting nonsence. Hound hunting and Baiting ARE better hunting methods for MGT, yet the Department remains silent. There are other examples as well.
We agree that WDFW has challenges, but if they do not even attempt to correct false assumptions based on fact how can we consider them our Alley or Champion? The answer is we CANNOT!
I have asked the question several times WHAT has the WDFW done (actions) to show they are a, supporter, advocate, friend of sportsmen? All I have heard are Crickets, or the excuse that there are politics involved. Perhaps many of you are content with a Department that only plays defense to slow the demise of our hunting in this state. I am not one of those people.
The solution is to speak the truth, and use the scientific FACTS that the WDFW is supposed to be following to support hunters. That does not mean they need to pick fights, insult people or be antagonistic. What is does mean is they cannot hide in the shadows hoping what they do and say will go unnoticed by BOTH sides.
Now, WDFW does manage using best available science to conserve all species as they are mandated to do. The things you are discussing...how many wolves should we manage for...are SOCIAL issues. DO NOT CONFUSE SOCIAL ISSUES WITH SCIENTIFIC ISSUES :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: This is where WDFW gets pressure from hunters (less wolves) and bunny huggers (more wolves) and then the legislature also provides input and then the governors office and on and on...and all of these people have a "voice" when it comes to the social aspects of wolf management and they all try to say they are using "the best science" but really these are social issues that are basically being decided like most things in a democracy.
On the hound/bait issue...I think WDFW was legally required to remain silent on the issue. Someone on here could explain that I'm sure.
Now, to your question on what WDFW has done for sportsmen?
-They manage our wildlife resources so that one of the most populated states in the West has OTC deer, elk, bear, and turkey hunting
-They provide hatchery fish for sport anglers nearly statewide
-They manage a private lands access program that is critical in a state that only has 50% public lands
-They have created and managed some of the highest quality bull elk hunts in the West
-They offer Hunters Education programs so that thousands of new hunters cans can learn to hunt safely
-They enforce hunting and fishing laws so that we have resources available to hunt and fish for
-They manage a depredation program to minimize impacts of wildlife on private lands
-They stock pheasants for hunters
This is what I could come up with in 30 seconds...this probably barely scratches the surface of what they do for sportsmen. A Hell of a lot more than any other organization in WA, because obviously they are funded to do so and it is their primary mission.
Let me ask you then, if not WDFW...what organization is an ally to hunters? RMEF? DU? PF? ??
Post by: wolfbait on May 24, 2014, 11:41:04 PM
I think this is where you fail to recognize the politics of this very liberal state. I believe from my personal interaction with WDFW admin that they are "playing" the best hand they can in the interest of sportsmen. You want WDFW to advocate more for sportsmen on wolves...and if this were Idaho they could. Its not. Do you think they would let the current WDFW director pack his office up before they tossed him to the curb if he just came out and said he wanted to reduce wolves 50% or something in this state?? :chuckle:
I think the most generous statement you could make is that the WDFW is neutral on the issue. At BEST the WDFW is playing defense. They do what they can to not piss off CNW & DoW, and attempt to keep happy sportsmen. Playing defense is reactive not proactive. Proactive = Advocate
Many times in WA it is best not to get politicians or the public riled up about hunting issues...particularly when we are the minority. Think hound and bait initiatives x 1000. Its why I am a huge advocate of communicating effectively and intelligently about wildlife management issues (e.g., not perpetuating garbage conspiracies) and supporting WDFW as best we can, which does include telling them when they are wrong on an issue. They know the political game, they have management authority (most of the time), and they have competent professional wildlife management staff for the most part...again, they are our biggest ally in successfully managing wildlife in this state. We gain nothing by alienating them or just constantly disparaging them. If they are doing something poorly, figure out how you can help them do it better :tup:
I'm not so ignorant to think that the WDFW Director could make that statement, And your condescension about my knowledge of this states politics is noted. I'm a Westsider and my family has likely been here as long as yours has been in ID. I make factual statements and point out the discrepancies as i see them.
WDFW is MANDATED to use good science to fulfill its mission. If you think that stating the FACTS equals antagonizing groups like CNW or DoW then the WDFW cannot be effective. WDFW has gone out of its way NOT to make comments that are backed by scientific MGT that refute Anti-hunting nonsence. Hound hunting and Baiting ARE better hunting methods for MGT, yet the Department remains silent. There are other examples as well.
We agree that WDFW has challenges, but if they do not even attempt to correct false assumptions based on fact how can we consider them our Alley or Champion? The answer is we CANNOT!
I have asked the question several times WHAT has the WDFW done (actions) to show they are a, supporter, advocate, friend of sportsmen? All I have heard are Crickets, or the excuse that there are politics involved. Perhaps many of you are content with a Department that only plays defense to slow the demise of our hunting in this state. I am not one of those people.
The solution is to speak the truth, and use the scientific FACTS that the WDFW is supposed to be following to support hunters. That does not mean they need to pick fights, insult people or be antagonistic. What is does mean is they cannot hide in the shadows hoping what they do and say will go unnoticed by BOTH sides.
Well, if you are familiar with WA politics then it should be obvious why WDFW can't manage wolves like Idaho. I don't know how much simpler I can make that point for you.
Now, WDFW does manage using best available science to conserve all species as they are mandated to do. The things you are discussing...how many wolves should we manage for...are SOCIAL issues. DO NOT CONFUSE SOCIAL ISSUES WITH SCIENTIFIC ISSUES :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: This is where WDFW gets pressure from hunters (less wolves) and bunny huggers (more wolves) and then the legislature also provides input and then the governors office and on and on...and all of these people have a "voice" when it comes to the social aspects of wolf management and they all try to say they are using "the best science" but really these are social issues that are basically being decided like most things in a democracy.
On the hound/bait issue...I think WDFW was legally required to remain silent on the issue. Someone on here could explain that I'm sure.
Now, to your question on what WDFW has done for sportsmen?
-They manage our wildlife resources so that one of the most populated states in the West has OTC deer, elk, bear, and turkey hunting
-They provide hatchery fish for sport anglers nearly statewide
-They manage a private lands access program that is critical in a state that only has 50% public lands
-They have created and managed some of the highest quality bull elk hunts in the West
-They offer Hunters Education programs so that thousands of new hunters cans can learn to hunt safely
-They enforce hunting and fishing laws so that we have resources available to hunt and fish for
-They manage a depredation program to minimize impacts of wildlife on private lands
-They stock pheasants for hunters
This is what I could come up with in 30 seconds...this probably barely scratches the surface of what they do for sportsmen. A Hell of a lot more than any other organization in WA, because obviously they are funded to do so and it is their primary mission.
Let me ask you then, if not WDFW...what organization is an ally to hunters? RMEF? DU? PF? ??
"Let me ask you then, if not WDFW...what organization is an ally to hunters? RMEF? DU? PF? ??"
At this stage in the game I would vote for the RMEF, at least they aren't lying about what the wolves have done and will do, can't say the same for WDFW.
You say that WDFW is managing cougars and bears with the best available science? Who's science, and where do facts start to have a play in management?
You say that managing the number of wolves is a social issue, what happened to honesty? Wouldn't managing wolves consist of not lying about wolf killed livestock, wolf sightings and the impact wolves are having on the game herds. If WDFW are switching from "science" to lying issues, how can WDFW be doing their job? After all confirming livestock killed by wolves generally entitles confirming a new wolf pack.
I think what most hunters, ranchers and rural folks want is some wolf control, and as we have seen in ID, MT, and Wyoming over the years, that took a long time coming. The fact that WDFW doesn't seem concerned about the impacts that cougars and bears are having on the game herds is bad enough, but when they say they have no clue as to the percentage of wolves that WA now has, and refuse to confirm livestock killed by wolves, confirm wolf packs or sightings that does not make them look too good in anyones eyes, except the environmental groups.
It seems "Environmentalists science" equals $$$$$ in lawsuits from one "endangered" critter to the next, and I think most people now realize that introducing the Canadian wolves had nothing to do with them being endangered.
'Now, to your question on what WDFW has done for sportsmen?"
-They manage our wildlife resources so that one of the most populated states in the West has OTC deer, elk, bear, and turkey hunting--Soon to be history do to poor predator control
-They provide hatchery fish for sport anglers nearly statewide
-They manage a private lands access program that is critical in a state that only has 50% public lands
-They have created and managed some of the highest quality bull elk hunts in the West--Wolves love elk, scratch the elk
-They offer Hunters Education programs so that thousands of new hunters cans can learn to hunt safely----No hunting left, shut down because of WDFW's socially managed predators
-They enforce hunting and fishing laws so that we have resources available to hunt and fish for--LEO's will be mostly checking on fishermen, and wolf poachers
-They manage a depredation program to minimize impacts of wildlife on private lands----Just another WDFW joke, where the ranchers aren't laughing
-They stock pheasants for hunters----Predators love pheasant
Post by: timberfaller on May 26, 2014, 08:48:56 AM
I'll attempt to make this statement reflect the department present state.
Now, WDFW does manage using only "biologist opinion", people who are in the field day in and day out are "ignored" their opinions are of no value because they don't have the "title" of Biologist!
Not my words, but what was told to me by a local WDFW enforcement officer.
Post by: bearpaw on May 26, 2014, 01:59:26 PM
INSTEAD, WDFW CHOSE TO FORCE MORE WOLVES INTO A SMALLER STATE WITH MANY TIMES MORE PEOPLE AND SMALLER HERDS TO SUPPORT THE LARGER WOLF POPULATION.
Draw your own conclusion from those facts!
Post by: Dave Workman on May 26, 2014, 02:21:57 PM
WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat). The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days. Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.
I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.
Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.
We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.
:bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on May 26, 2014, 04:29:32 PM
There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million. It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population. I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. :twocents:WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat). The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days. Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.
I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.
Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.
We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.
Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan. Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2014, 04:41:01 PM
Post by: wolfbait on May 26, 2014, 08:57:51 PM
I agree that 15 pair may be too many, but really what difference does it make? It's not like they're going to open season on wolves as soon as the 15 pair minimum is met. And even if they were taken off the endangered species list eventually, and a hunting season opened on wolves, how many will actually get killed by hunters? I would think very few, not enough to even make a noticeable dent in the population.
The sooner we are delisted, the sooner we can protect our livestock etc. I think that makes one hell of a difference. With WDFW's wolf plan they can drag delisting out for a long time, as we are seeing.
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2014, 09:05:22 PM
I agree that 15 pair may be too many, but really what difference does it make? It's not like they're going to open season on wolves as soon as the 15 pair minimum is met. And even if they were taken off the endangered species list eventually, and a hunting season opened on wolves, how many will actually get killed by hunters? I would think very few, not enough to even make a noticeable dent in the population.
The sooner we are delisted, the sooner we can protect our livestock etc. I think that makes one hell of a difference. With WDFW's wolf plan they can drag delisting out for a long time, as we are seeing.
I thought you could protect your livestock now? So if a rancher were to see a wolf attempting to take down one of his cows he couldn't shoot it?
Post by: villageidiot on May 26, 2014, 10:39:56 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 26, 2014, 11:07:33 PM
Post by: AspenBud on May 27, 2014, 06:37:46 AM
There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million. It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population. I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. :twocents:WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat). The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days. Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.
I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.
Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.
We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.
Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan. Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.
So true these days I hardly ever meet truly native Washingtonians. People from California or the Midwest...I meet many transplants from there.
Post by: Bob33 on May 27, 2014, 06:47:01 AM
Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.Not necessary.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/)
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 08:28:58 AM
Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.Not necessary.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/)
Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.
There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million. It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population. I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. :twocents:WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat). The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days. Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.
I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.
Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.
We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.
Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan. Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.
I agree that we do not want F&G getting more general fund moneys. They will become less and less about Fish & Game and more and more about other non-game wildlife.
Regarding what wildlife we should expect, we had no wolves 40 years ago, now they want 15+BP's, why can't we expect to have as many or more ungulates than 40 years ago? Wildlife in this state is what we make of it. If nobody wants robust herds then we certainly won't have them. It's all about setting goals and achieving those goals.
Post by: AspenBud on May 27, 2014, 08:35:19 AM
Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.Not necessary.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/)
Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million. It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population. I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. :twocents:WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat). The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days. Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.
I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.
Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.
We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.
Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan. Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.
I agree that we do not want F&G getting more general fund moneys. They will become less and less about Fish & Game and more and more about other non-game wildlife.
Regarding what wildlife we should expect, we had no wolves 40 years ago, now they want 15+BP's, why can't we expect to have as many or more ungulates than 40 years ago? Wildlife in this state is what we make of it. If nobody wants robust herds then we certainly won't have them. It's all about setting goals and achieving those goals.
Just addressing your point in bold, you are correct, but I think he's trying to say the makeup of the state is different. Once upon a time this state voted in Republican candidates as governor from time to time.
When I talk to a lot of new residents they are often very left of center and I'm afraid they have fundamentally changed the politics of Washington. This has never been a hardcore right leaning state, but it used to be more common sense minded.
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 08:41:01 AM
Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.Not necessary.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/)
Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.There were about 2.9 million people in WA 40 years ago...there are now over 7 million. It is extremely misleading to suggest we could have all the things we had 40 years ago with more than double the population. I don't care who you have running Olympia or what your management philosophy is. :twocents:WDFW's hands are somewhat tied (not completely but somewhat). The organizations with the most money play a big role in everything these days. Who knows, someday our main course for a Thanksgiving dinner may be lettuce.
I might suggest they supplied the rope.
They could have done more when the hound hunting ban initiative was on the ballot, and did not.
They could have decided not to have 15 breeding pairs as the benchmark, but did so anyway.
Bearpaw is correct. WDFW engineered this loser of a wolf plan, the most liberal in the west.
Hunters are something of a necessary evil, it would seem, for this bunch. They need our license money in order to qualify for more federal money through USFWS and the Pittman-Robertson fund.
We coould have all the things we had 40 years ago, but it would require a change in administrations in Olympia, a change in management philosophy and a full set of gonads.
Its also this same 7 million people that have some say in how wildlife are managed and drive why WA has a 15 bp minimum in the wolf plan. Again, a big reason I oppose state f&w agencies getting money from the general fund.
I agree that we do not want F&G getting more general fund moneys. They will become less and less about Fish & Game and more and more about other non-game wildlife.
Regarding what wildlife we should expect, we had no wolves 40 years ago, now they want 15+BP's, why can't we expect to have as many or more ungulates than 40 years ago? Wildlife in this state is what we make of it. If nobody wants robust herds then we certainly won't have them. It's all about setting goals and achieving those goals.
Just addressing your point in bold, you are correct, but I think he's trying to say the makeup of the state is different. Once upon a time this state voted in Republican candidates as governor from time to time.
When I talk to a lot of new residents they are often very left of center and I'm afraid they have fundamentally changed the politics of Washington. This has never been a hardcore right leaning state, but it used to be more common sense minded.
I have to agree with that.
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 08:43:42 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 09:06:40 AM
Correct. And WDFW is pushing hard to get wolves federally de-listed in the western 2/3 of the state which would provide the state the flexibility to allow ranchers the same options as those in the eastern 1/3. I hope folks in the Methow are supportive of WDFW's efforts.Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.Not necessary.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/)
Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 09:17:07 AM
So the million dollar question is how do we encourage the type of management to improve herds and opportunities?:yeah: Bingo.
This is why I believe WDFW is our biggest ally. We HAVE to demonstrate that wolves will be managed in a way that they will not be exterminated. I think the RMEF talking point that resonates well with non-hunters is that we need to manage for ALL wildlife...which means we can't have wolves running amok at the expense of ungulates...nor should we expect every predator population to be managed down to critically low numbers. And we need WDFW to convey to the legislature, the public, etc. that they can manage ALL wildlife...otherwise we are going to end up managing wildlife via ballot box and things will go to hell quickly because sportsmen simply do not have the votes in this state to balance out the greenies and their big dollar media campaigns. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on May 27, 2014, 09:47:35 AM
So the million dollar question is how do we encourage the type of management to improve herds and opportunities?:yeah: Bingo.
This is why I believe WDFW is our biggest ally. We HAVE to demonstrate that wolves will be managed in a way that they will not be exterminated. I think the RMEF talking point that resonates well with non-hunters is that we need to manage for ALL wildlife...which means we can't have wolves running amok at the expense of ungulates...nor should we expect every predator population to be managed down to critically low numbers. And we need WDFW to convey to the legislature, the public, etc. that they can manage ALL wildlife...otherwise we are going to end up managing wildlife via ballot box and things will go to hell quickly because sportsmen simply do not have the votes in this state to balance out the greenies and their big dollar media campaigns. :twocents:
I have heard variations of these 2 statements outlined in red several times. FACTS support hunting wolves, AND shooting more predators.
Facts that in WA we do not have trapping like ID MT , Fact that even those states that allow traps and aerial gunning are NOT keeping numbers in check. Fact Hunting alone does very Little to control populations. This leads me to believe that hunting Could/should be done where wolves are NOT protected by the ESA. IF you opened it up to hunting wolves would likely learn to stay away from humans, AND people would actually feel better about the situation. Nobody like being treated like a *censored* especially when they are responsible for paying the way...
There are other predators that have benefited from protection for over 40 years, and now they are once again a pest because commonsense harvest regulations have not been put into place.
If the WDFW was actually in the business of promoting hunting, it would take the time to explain to the general public how hunting is beneficial. If wolves can be "beneficial" to the ecosystem why cant hunters be the same? We can choose sex, age, geographic locations, harvest numbers to "balance" the numbers.
I know it has been said that the WDFW could not comment on the Initiative that outlawed Hounds and Baiting. BUT THEY COULD NOW! They even don't have to mention the law, they can state the facts and benefits of regulated predator hunting. Which happen to be the same "reasons" why they tell hunters wolves are OK...
WDFW are not our champions... They cant be. If they are unwilling to make the case for hunting as management even in the most nonconfrontational subdud way that is common in the Seattle area, how can you make the case that they are?
Post by: wolfbait on May 27, 2014, 02:37:55 PM
Correct. And WDFW is pushing hard to get wolves federally de-listed in the western 2/3 of the state which would provide the state the flexibility to allow ranchers the same options as those in the eastern 1/3. I hope folks in the Methow are supportive of WDFW's efforts.Well, then I guess that's why you don't tell anybody.Not necessary.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2613a/)
Management depends on where you live. The eastern 1/3 where you can kill a wolf to protect livestock does not include the Methow where wolfbait and villiageidiot live.
You can BS the fans but not the players! I think the Okanogan people have given up reporting wolf sightings and problems to WDFW, they just lie to the people and tell them it was coyotes or there are no wolves in their area. Since you seem to have such a good connection to WDFW, and some claim that WDFW even watch this forum? Tell WDFW to confirm the rest of the wolf packs in the Methow Valley, tell them to confirm the wolf pack up by Buzzard lake, and have them check on the wolves in Spring Coulee. Tell them to send someone who actually gives a damn up on Omak Flats to talk to people who have had wolves in their yards. I call BS on WDFW, they are dragging delisting out as long as they can. The people I have talk to are very pissed at WDFW and their lies, which is not going to end well for some in the future. It's a shame that do to WDFW's dishonesty people are forced to take matters into their own hands and break the law, but that is where many people are today.
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2014, 03:08:13 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 03:11:14 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 03:12:00 PM
Go read this and then tell me WDFW is not trying to federally de-list wolves.
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 03:24:02 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf)
Go read this and then tell me WDFW is not trying to federally de-list wolves.
I've read that before, also one of the reasons I say that Director Anderson is the best director we've had in decades.
Post by: wolfbait on May 27, 2014, 06:12:42 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf)
Go read this and then tell me WDFW is not trying to federally de-list wolves.
If WDFW were "trying" to delist don't you think they would be interested in confirming wolf packs as fast as they could? The facts on the ground don't match WDFW's "trying" unless you are talking about steers.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 09:17:12 PM
They are...and they seek all the public sightings of wolves they can to aid in their efforts to find and confirm wolf packs. If you are so smart why don't you tell them where the wolves are? Of course you have probably alienated all of the staff in your area to the point that they don't take you seriously so maybe you could tell somebody who they will actually consider listening to :dunno:http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf)
Go read this and then tell me WDFW is not trying to federally de-list wolves.
If WDFW were "try" to delist don't you think they would be interested in confirming wolf packs as fast as they could? The facts on the ground don't match WDFW's "trying" unless you are talking about steers.
Post by: wolfbait on May 27, 2014, 10:06:34 PM
They are...and they seek all the public sightings of wolves they can to aid in their efforts to find and confirm wolf packs. If you are so smart why don't you tell them where the wolves are? Of course you have probably alienated all of the staff in your area to the point that they don't take you seriously so maybe you could tell somebody who they will actually consider listening to :dunno:http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf)
Go read this and then tell me WDFW is not trying to federally de-list wolves.
If WDFW were "try" to delist don't you think they would be interested in confirming wolf packs as fast as they could? The facts on the ground don't match WDFW's "trying" unless you are talking about steers.
They know where there are packs that need confirming, in fact I'm quite sure they know of more packs then I do, after all the reported wolf problems and sightings.
Back in Feb 16 2011 a friend and I were hunting wolves with cameras, in two weeks we had taken pictures of seven different wolves from Alder Cr to Carlton, and many wolf kills from Mazama to Gold cr. One day we were in on the Golden Doe access road, and the BBC crew showed up, they were filming their, I love the wolf film. They interviewed us twice, once to get our opinion and the second time to download some wolf pictures we had taken.
At the first interveiw they said they hadn't seen a wolf yet, we told them we had taken pictures of two different wolves close to where we were standing on 2/9/2011, in fact there were wolf kills within a hundred yards. We also told them of the Cow cr wolf pack that had six wolves in it, (we had loaned a trail cam to the people who had this pack run their dog under their house). I found out later that the BBC crew interviewed these people also. I ask Jasmine of CNW why Fitkin wouldn't confirm the War cr pack, and she said she knew Fitkin knew of the War cr pack but that it was to expensive to confirm wolf packs. So then I ask her where they got all the money to run a cougar collaring program, with several WDFW rigs at a time along with the hounds. She didn't have an answer. That Spring WDFW came out with One maybe Two wolves in the Lookout pack, I could go on but I'm sure most people understand what the outcome will be with WDFW and wolves, those who don't are in for some sad reality as the years go by.
I think Bone got a picture of three wolves that spring across from Carlton also.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 10:25:44 PM
I'd pay good money to see your interview...I'm betting that is some youtube material!
I'm not saying this to be mean-spirited at all...I disagree with you a lot, but I bet you are anything but a boring guy to hang around.
Post by: wolfbait on May 27, 2014, 10:40:03 PM
Post by: Special T on May 28, 2014, 07:14:20 AM
They are...and they seek all the public sightings of wolves they can to aid in their efforts to find and confirm wolf packs. If you are so smart why don't you tell them where the wolves are? Of course you have probably alienated all of the staff in your area to the point that they don't take you seriously so maybe you could tell somebody who they will actually consider listening to :dunno:http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf)
Go read this and then tell me WDFW is not trying to federally de-list wolves.
If WDFW were "try" to delist don't you think they would be interested in confirming wolf packs as fast as they could? The facts on the ground don't match WDFW's "trying" unless you are talking about steers.
Since the WDFW is so interested in documenting wolves and want all the help they can get, Why did they turn down a FREE trapper from the Cattlemen's association? You combine that with the treatment many people have received while reporting wolves, and you should at least acknowledge the skepticism. I would bet if the WDFW had accepted the cattlemens help we would already have 18 pairs documented. There are MANY ways to slow down the "Documentation" of packs. Ive heard people say its NOT in the WDFW interest to delay, and the WDFW has said they lack the funds to properly document wolves... This doesn't pass the sniff test, and since the department has no interest in clarifying there is little reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 28, 2014, 09:41:06 AM
They are...and they seek all the public sightings of wolves they can to aid in their efforts to find and confirm wolf packs. If you are so smart why don't you tell them where the wolves are? Of course you have probably alienated all of the staff in your area to the point that they don't take you seriously so maybe you could tell somebody who they will actually consider listening to :dunno:http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_natural_resource_committees_12-18-13.pdf)
Go read this and then tell me WDFW is not trying to federally de-list wolves.
If WDFW were "try" to delist don't you think they would be interested in confirming wolf packs as fast as they could? The facts on the ground don't match WDFW's "trying" unless you are talking about steers.
Since the WDFW is so interested in documenting wolves and want all the help they can get, Why did they turn down a FREE trapper from the Cattlemen's association?
I don't know the details of this offer. Have you specifically asked them why they turned down the offer? Were there any strings attached from the Cattlemens? Was it a specific person they had in mind or were they simply offering $$$?
You combine that with the treatment many people have received while reporting wolves, and you should at least acknowledge the skepticism. All of my interaction with WDFW and the information on their website suggests they are very eager to get reports of wolves from the public. They probably have to sift through a lot of bogus reports for every credible one...have they been too quick to dismiss some?? Probably. Last time I heard the wolf guy (Martorello??) speak he was very clear that given how migratory wolves are it is very possible that one could see a wolf ANYWHERE in Washington state. Every inch of Washington could have a wolf pass through it. With a growing population Im sure wdfw is becoming less skeptical of wolf reports :dunno: But they are more interested in clusters of sightings or sightings of multiple wolves because they want to confirm packs...not individual wolves. I think some people have this unrealistic fantasy that if they see a wolf and call wdfw they should see a team of biologists racing to the site with collars in hand :dunno: I would bet if the WDFW had accepted the cattlemens help we would already have 18 pairs documented. There are MANY ways to slow down the "Documentation" of packs. Ive heard people say its NOT in the WDFW interest to delay, and the WDFW has said they lack the funds to properly document wolves... This doesn't pass the sniff test, and since the department has no interest in clarifying there is little reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. I agree that they have no interest in misrepresenting wolf numbers or the numbers of any wildlife which they are responsible for managing...they frequently discuss how the wolf population is growing rapidly or expected to grow rapidly. I have not heard lack of funding as a concern for not documenting wolves...the wolf budget has grown substantially recently. They have had difficulty trapping as many wolves as they would like but I've not heard them claim $$ as a big issue specific to trapping efforts. Most of what you are describing as fact is really just gossip with little supporting documentation. I would encourage you to look more objectively at what WDFW is doing and rely less on internet forums or coffee house chatter
Post by: KFhunter on May 28, 2014, 09:45:34 AM
Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2014, 09:57:12 AM
WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.
And yet WDFW fawn over CNW like they were from the same family. Like Special T said if we had a trapper from the cattlemen we would have 18 plus packs confirmed in a very short time. I know of several ranchers that would go out of their way to make it happen.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 28, 2014, 10:34:59 AM
WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.I can understand that. I know they took money from CNW to up the wolf poaching reward, but i could see why they would not want a special interest group to have their fingerprints on the data collection efforts.
If the Cattlemen have very qualified trappers is there a reason those individuals could not apply to WDFW jobs and just be a WDFW employee? That would seem to resolve the issue if its just a matter of getting the most skilled folks to do the job. :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on May 28, 2014, 11:44:03 AM
WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.I can understand that. I know they took money from CNW to up the wolf poaching reward, but i could see why they would not want a special interest group to have their fingerprints on the data collection efforts.
If the Cattlemen have very qualified trappers is there a reason those individuals could not apply to WDFW jobs and just be a WDFW employee? That would seem to resolve the issue if its just a matter of getting the most skilled folks to do the job. :dunno:
Kind of like CNW being at every new wolf pack confirmation? CNW working with WDFW on the range rider program? etc.. No conflict of interest there.
If WDFW won't listen to the people they already have in the field, what makes you think they would listen to someone from the cattlemen working for them?
I'm sure WDFW could get Carter Niemeyer to trap wolves for them if they were really serious about confirming wolf packs. I think I read somewhere that Carter works with WDFW off and on anyway.
WDFW are always saying how the lookout pack is so elusive and they can't catch them, what a joke. What's one more lie from WDFW?
Post by: Special T on May 28, 2014, 11:46:43 AM
Those were the condiditons, so if the WDFW wont agree to those then they are not really interested in Pushing for full fast documentation. Excuses like lack of funding are a read herring. The WDFW has been slow playing documentation.
As you your second responce MANY people who have experience with wolves have been told they don't know what they are looking at. I have a firend that lived in Canada and was around wolves. He saw and reported wolves in the 418 nooksack unit. He was told he didn't know what he was looking for and that he saw coyotes. Deragotry reponces by WDFW agents in reponce to sightings some WITH PICTURE PROOF are not the work of people interested in getting to the bottom of the problem.
You can always expect some level of complaining, however when your % of positive to negative is in the single digits there is likely a problem.
Just because you or some one else say the department has our best intersts at heart does not make it so. Im interested in thier actions, and so for they are lacking.
Post by: Special T on May 28, 2014, 11:48:04 AM
WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.I can understand that. I know they took money from CNW to up the wolf poaching reward, but i could see why they would not want a special interest group to have their fingerprints on the data collection efforts.
If the Cattlemen have very qualified trappers is there a reason those individuals could not apply to WDFW jobs and just be a WDFW employee? That would seem to resolve the issue if its just a matter of getting the most skilled folks to do the job. :dunno:
the REAL trappers did not have Bio degrees that is why they couldnt be hired. But like i said they arn't necessary if a WDFW agent could accompany the trapper.
Post by: KFhunter on May 28, 2014, 04:28:20 PM
WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.I can understand that. I know they took money from CNW to up the wolf poaching reward, but i could see why they would not want a special interest group to have their fingerprints on the data collection efforts.
If the Cattlemen have very qualified trappers is there a reason those individuals could not apply to WDFW jobs and just be a WDFW employee? That would seem to resolve the issue if its just a matter of getting the most skilled folks to do the job. :dunno:
Kind of like CNW being at every new wolf pack confirmation? CNW working with WDFW on the range rider program? etc.. No conflict of interest there.
If WDFW won't listen to the people they already have in the field, what makes you think they would listen to someone from the cattlemen working for them?
I'm sure WDFW could get Carter Niemeyer to trap wolves for them if they were really serious about confirming wolf packs. I think I read somewhere that Carter works with WDFW off and on anyway.
WDFW are always saying how the lookout pack is so elusive and they can't catch them, what a joke. What's one more lie from WDFW?
Idahohntr knows all this crap.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 28, 2014, 11:00:08 PM
I think they need to mod the job description/qualifications. Bring the experienced trappers to the front of the line. I see no need (and only problems) with having the Cattlemen furnish one of their own...take the same guy and hire him as a regular wdfw employee...image problem solved, experience problem solved, win-win.WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.I can understand that. I know they took money from CNW to up the wolf poaching reward, but i could see why they would not want a special interest group to have their fingerprints on the data collection efforts.
If the Cattlemen have very qualified trappers is there a reason those individuals could not apply to WDFW jobs and just be a WDFW employee? That would seem to resolve the issue if its just a matter of getting the most skilled folks to do the job. :dunno:
the REAL trappers did not have Bio degrees that is why they couldnt be hired. But like i said they arn't necessary if a WDFW agent could accompany the trapper.
Post by: Romulus1297 on May 28, 2014, 11:16:08 PM
Post by: Special T on May 29, 2014, 07:20:49 AM
I think they need to mod the job description/qualifications. Bring the experienced trappers to the front of the line. I see no need (and only problems) with having the Cattlemen furnish one of their own...take the same guy and hire him as a regular wdfw employee...image problem solved, experience problem solved, win-win.WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.I can understand that. I know they took money from CNW to up the wolf poaching reward, but i could see why they would not want a special interest group to have their fingerprints on the data collection efforts.
If the Cattlemen have very qualified trappers is there a reason those individuals could not apply to WDFW jobs and just be a WDFW employee? That would seem to resolve the issue if its just a matter of getting the most skilled folks to do the job. :dunno:
the REAL trappers did not have Bio degrees that is why they couldnt be hired. But like i said they arn't necessary if a WDFW agent could accompany the trapper.
Why would the Cattlemen give funds to the WDFW and NOT get to choose their experienced trapper?
IDHnter you have a very simplistic way of looking at this. There are many ways to slow the process down of documenting wolves so that we effectively have way more wolves than documented.
In poker they call the term being Slow Played. You let other people hustle and lead the way only to set yourself up to win in the end... The BP number is arbitrary if there is not a great effort to document wolves. Making excuses and arguing over tactics or reasoning is just delay. Delay IS a tactic that allows more wolves before we can de-list.
Post by: AspenBud on May 29, 2014, 09:01:18 AM
I think they need to mod the job description/qualifications. Bring the experienced trappers to the front of the line. I see no need (and only problems) with having the Cattlemen furnish one of their own...take the same guy and hire him as a regular wdfw employee...image problem solved, experience problem solved, win-win.WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.I can understand that. I know they took money from CNW to up the wolf poaching reward, but i could see why they would not want a special interest group to have their fingerprints on the data collection efforts.
If the Cattlemen have very qualified trappers is there a reason those individuals could not apply to WDFW jobs and just be a WDFW employee? That would seem to resolve the issue if its just a matter of getting the most skilled folks to do the job. :dunno:
the REAL trappers did not have Bio degrees that is why they couldnt be hired. But like i said they arn't necessary if a WDFW agent could accompany the trapper.
Why would the Cattlemen give funds to the WDFW and NOT get to choose thier experienced trapper?
IDHnter you have a very simplistic way of looking at this. There are many ways to slow the process down of documenting wolves so that we effectively have way more wolves than documented.
In poker they call the term being Sow Played. You let other people hustle and lead the way only to set yourself up to win in the end... The BP number is arbitrary if there is not a great effort to document wolves. Making excuses and arguing over tactics or reasoning is just delay. Delay IS a tactic that allows more wolves before we can de-list.
The dirty truth is it's hard to get a job at any level of government work without some sort of college degree. Way too much weight is given to degrees for a lot of work in government and higher education. This is not uncommon however. Having lived it first hand before getting fed up and going back into the private sector I can say this is not an unusual requirement. It is, however, a dumb requirement if all that is needed is someone to successfully trap an animal. There are plenty of bio's who could walk a trap line alongside an experienced trapper and get the results needed.
Experience should supersede education in some instances, but in the public sector world people go looking for places to poke holes when things go wrong and when an employee doesn't have both the experience and educational background people in management roast. The private sector doesn't get that kind of scrutiny so hiring managers tend to worry about their butts less in that regard.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 29, 2014, 09:33:17 AM
I do not believe WDFW is delaying the confirmation of wolves and wolf packs to suit any needs or to "slow play" the de-listing process. As controversial a topic as wolves are, where you can guarantee scrutiny and lawsuits will come about as a result of any and all decisions, the absolute quickest way to get fired and create huge problems would be to do anything that intentionally manipulates data to over or under report wolf numbers. This is precisely why they would never allow the Cattlemens Assoc. to collect data for them...but again, I do not see why there should be any roadblocks to hiring the exact same guy just no Cattlemen money involved...he is a wdfw employee. College degrees are often a requirement, but I don't think it would be difficult to make an exception if WDFW believes this is limiting their success. I know they have relied more heavily on use of helicopters for location and capture of wolves recently and that may be an even better approach than having the best trapper in the world :dunno: The actions of the WDFW admin and staff (letter to USFWS requesting federal de-listing; multiple attempts to classify wolves as big game animals; requests for public reports of wolves; removal of wolves up in NE WA and many, many more) suggests to me they want the ability to manage wolves as a game animal just like Idaho and Montana.I think they need to mod the job description/qualifications. Bring the experienced trappers to the front of the line. I see no need (and only problems) with having the Cattlemen furnish one of their own...take the same guy and hire him as a regular wdfw employee...image problem solved, experience problem solved, win-win.WDFW said they turned down the cattlemens trapper was because they didn't want to appear to have favoritism, or appear that their decisions are being swayed by an outside organization.I can understand that. I know they took money from CNW to up the wolf poaching reward, but i could see why they would not want a special interest group to have their fingerprints on the data collection efforts.
If the Cattlemen have very qualified trappers is there a reason those individuals could not apply to WDFW jobs and just be a WDFW employee? That would seem to resolve the issue if its just a matter of getting the most skilled folks to do the job. :dunno:
the REAL trappers did not have Bio degrees that is why they couldnt be hired. But like i said they arn't necessary if a WDFW agent could accompany the trapper.
Why would the Cattlemen give funds to the WDFW and NOT get to choose thier experienced trapper?
IDHnter you have a very simplistic way of looking at this. There are many ways to slow the process down of documenting wolves so that we effectively have way more wolves than documented.
In poker they call the term being Sow Played. You let other people hustle and lead the way only to set yourself up to win in the end... The BP number is arbitrary if there is not a great effort to document wolves. Making excuses and arguing over tactics or reasoning is just delay. Delay IS a tactic that allows more wolves before we can de-list.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2014, 10:50:24 AM
As for the cattlemans "experienced trapper".... There is more to a capture effort than just catching a wolf. Drugging, vet work, information gathering, blood draws,... these things require specialized training and WDFW isn't going to risk having to explain why the Cattleman's "experienced trapper" let a wolf die of hyperthermia.... :twocents:
Post by: AspenBud on May 29, 2014, 11:29:22 AM
As for the cattlemans "experienced trapper".... There is more to a capture effort than just catching a wolf. Drugging, vet work, information gathering, blood draws,... these things require specialized training and WDFW isn't going to risk having to explain why the Cattleman's "experienced trapper" let a wolf die of hyperthermia.... :twocents:
And there is a budgetary side to that as well. It's cheaper to hire someone who is the total package versus several Johnny One Note's. The problem is the total package can often be a unicorn.
Post by: buckfvr on May 29, 2014, 11:31:35 AM
Post by: Special T on May 29, 2014, 11:42:06 AM
Maybe an arrangement could be made for the in-dependant trapper to be accompanied on trap checking missions by said trained and qualified person from wdfw.
That is essentially what the Cattlemens association offered up. Some one with the "training" required to ride with the knuckle draggin trapper that cant figure out some basic steps because he is too tainted by cattlemen's $
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 29, 2014, 11:44:06 AM
If they wanted to help, they could fund a trapping effort. It sucks, but that's the way it goes.
Post by: Special T on May 29, 2014, 11:51:53 AM
IF the agency had an interest in tapping into funds and adding another trapper they could come to some kind of agreement i bet.
Post by: buckfvr on May 29, 2014, 12:06:17 PM
The WDFW has two trappers working. I'm not sure they would want to send a trained person out with the cattleman's trapper. If he needed someone along to do all the technical stuff, he wouldn't exactly be considered "independent".
If they wanted to help, they could fund a trapping effort. It sucks, but that's the way it goes.
Successful in-dependant trappers are just that........
Cant slight a trappers trapping skills because he lacks data collection skills.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 29, 2014, 01:16:13 PM
:rolleyes: Yes, this is exactly what was implied wasn't it.Maybe an arrangement could be made for the in-dependant trapper to be accompanied on trap checking missions by said trained and qualified person from wdfw.
That is essentially what the Cattlemens association offered up. Some one with the "training" required to ride with the knuckle draggin trapper that cant figure out some basic steps because he is too tainted by cattlemen's $
Post by: wolfbait on May 29, 2014, 02:18:31 PM
I think you guys are underestimating the actual size of a wolf packs home range, and also misunderstanding the nature of pack dynamics. Just because two wolves are spotted simultaneously 10 miles (or even 20-30 miles) apart does not mean that there are two wolf packs. A wolf pack is not always together, or even close to one another. They come and go...
As for the cattlemans "experienced trapper".... There is more to a capture effort than just catching a wolf. Drugging, vet work, information gathering, blood draws,... these things require specialized training and WDFW isn't going to risk having to explain why the Cattleman's "experienced trapper" let a wolf die of hyperthermia.... :twocents:
That's right every wolf reported in the Okanogan is part of the lookout pack, even when nine are seen in Carlton and seven are seen up War cr the same day, twenty five or so miles apart. No wonder WDFW have to pick a number out of the sky in order to count their wolves.
I think WDFW's trappers need some oversight, send someone along besides CNW to see how many wolves they are collaring, because I know of wolves that are collared that WDFW never bring up, so do a few other people. Why is that WC? How come WDFW say there are only two collared wolves in the Methow? That isn't true and they know it. What about the wolves that are collard over in Salmon Cr on the Okanogan side? How come WDFW don't confirm that wolf pack? Are they waiting for some livestock kills?
Post by: wolfbait on May 31, 2014, 09:38:31 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 31, 2014, 10:22:35 PM
I wonder if WDFW will mention the female wolf they collard recently in McFarland Cr? Will they continue to ignore the wolf reports in Black Canyon? If they do mention the new collard female will they try to claim she is part of the lookout pack, or claim it is a wolf that "migrated" in from Idaho? Or will they finally confirm another pack in the Methow?So you don't think wolves can migrate huh? :stup:
Post by: Romulus1297 on June 01, 2014, 12:29:50 AM
I wonder if WDFW will mention the female wolf they collard recently in McFarland Cr? Will they continue to ignore the wolf reports in Black Canyon? If they do mention the new collard female will they try to claim she is part of the lookout pack, or claim it is a wolf that "migrated" in from Idaho? Or will they finally confirm another pack in the Methow?That's really nice :bash: My girl can look at my Squaw Cr. Buck on the wall but I wont take her there this year or next year or next year or next year etc. Not my avatar buck either. What a waist of the Methow deer how stupid :bash:
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2014, 07:03:16 AM
I wonder if WDFW will mention the female wolf they collard recently in McFarland Cr? Will they continue to ignore the wolf reports in Black Canyon? If they do mention the new collard female will they try to claim she is part of the lookout pack, or claim it is a wolf that "migrated" in from Idaho? Or will they finally confirm another pack in the Methow?So you don't think wolves can migrate huh? :stup:
Caribou migrate, wolves expand! In Idaho Ed Bangs released wolves where they weren't suppose to, people watched as the wildlife disappeared from the release outward, the same with livestock kills, Ed Bangs later admitted they released the wolves. Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.
What were you saying about stupid people?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 01, 2014, 09:43:22 PM
Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.Yes, USFWS stole the word "migration" in a secret attempt to make everyone think the wolves came from nowhere even though the President and about a 1000 reporters were on hand for their releases in 95 or 96. Too bad the wolf lovers didn't think of that one...I mean who knew there would be reporters present taking pictures when the President of the United States showed up????
What were you saying about stupid people?
Now, in a couple years when there is still not a single shred of evidence that wolves were planted by wdfw or usfws in WA will you shut up? Or will you just come up with more bogus conspiracies to explain away your continued lack of evidence for your absurd claims?
Post by: jackelope on June 01, 2014, 10:09:30 PM
I wonder if WDFW will mention the female wolf they collard recently in McFarland Cr? Will they continue to ignore the wolf reports in Black Canyon? If they do mention the new collard female will they try to claim she is part of the lookout pack, or claim it is a wolf that "migrated" in from Idaho? Or will they finally confirm another pack in the Methow?So you don't think wolves can migrate huh? :stup:
Caribou migrate, wolves expand! In Idaho Ed Bangs released wolves where they weren't suppose to, people watched as the wildlife disappeared from the release outward, the same with livestock kills, Ed Bangs later admitted they released the wolves. Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.
What were you saying about stupid people?
Just a few more years? It's been about 5 years since the truth was going to come out eventually. Glad to see it's only going to be a few more. It's like an 8 year plan to get the truth out and expose the WDFW. Looking forward to the day.
:dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2014, 04:35:04 AM
Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.Yes, USFWS stole the word "migration" in a secret attempt to make everyone think the wolves came from nowhere even though the President and about a 1000 reporters were on hand for their releases in 95 or 96. Too bad the wolf lovers didn't think of that one...I mean who knew there would be reporters present taking pictures when the President of the United States showed up????
What were you saying about stupid people?
Now, in a couple years when there is still not a single shred of evidence that wolves were planted by wdfw or usfws in WA will you shut up? Or will you just come up with more bogus conspiracies to explain away your continued lack of evidence for your absurd claims?
"Caribou migrate, wolves expand! In Idaho Ed Bangs released wolves where they weren't suppose to, people watched as the wildlife disappeared from the release outward, the same with livestock kills, Ed Bangs later admitted they released the wolves. Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.
What were you saying about stupid people?"
You might as well quote the whole post ID. in 2004-2005 the USFWS released another bunch of wolves south of I-90, when Ed Bangs admitted the release he said they had to do it because wolves were not expanding as quick as they had hoped.
How do you bring out agenda driven pro-wolfers? Mention the fact that WDFW will be held accountable for releasing wolves in WA.
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2014, 04:43:14 AM
I wonder if WDFW will mention the female wolf they collard recently in McFarland Cr? Will they continue to ignore the wolf reports in Black Canyon? If they do mention the new collard female will they try to claim she is part of the lookout pack, or claim it is a wolf that "migrated" in from Idaho? Or will they finally confirm another pack in the Methow?So you don't think wolves can migrate huh? :stup:
Caribou migrate, wolves expand! In Idaho Ed Bangs released wolves where they weren't suppose to, people watched as the wildlife disappeared from the release outward, the same with livestock kills, Ed Bangs later admitted they released the wolves. Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.
What were you saying about stupid people?
Just a few more years? It's been about 5 years since the truth was going to come out eventually. Glad to see it's only going to be a few more. It's like an 8 year plan to get the truth out and expose the WDFW. Looking forward to the day.
:dunno:
There has to be pictures or film of releases Jack, other wise the USFWS/WDFW will lie their way out, but then you already know that. Hows that "just settle down and wait for delisting" working out for everyone? Where have you been Jack? I thought you weren't going to talk about wolves anymore? Or is it only when you must defend WDFW's fake wolf "migrations"? ;)
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2014, 05:45:46 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2014, 09:02:51 AM
:stup: You pack more lies into one post than I could have ever imagined. No wolves were released in Idaho in 2004/5 and wolves HAVE NEVER been released in WA by usfws and wdfw.Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.Yes, USFWS stole the word "migration" in a secret attempt to make everyone think the wolves came from nowhere even though the President and about a 1000 reporters were on hand for their releases in 95 or 96. Too bad the wolf lovers didn't think of that one...I mean who knew there would be reporters present taking pictures when the President of the United States showed up????
What were you saying about stupid people?
Now, in a couple years when there is still not a single shred of evidence that wolves were planted by wdfw or usfws in WA will you shut up? Or will you just come up with more bogus conspiracies to explain away your continued lack of evidence for your absurd claims?
"Caribou migrate, wolves expand! In Idaho Ed Bangs released wolves where they weren't suppose to, people watched as the wildlife disappeared from the release outward, the same with livestock kills, Ed Bangs later admitted they released the wolves. Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.
What were you saying about stupid people?"
You might as well quote the whole post ID. in 2004-2005 the USFWS released another bunch of wolves south of I-90, when Ed Bangs admitted the release he said they had to do it because wolves were not expanding as quick as they had hoped.
How do you bring out agenda driven pro-wolfers? Mention the fact that WDFW will be held accountable for releasing wolves in WA.
You want to talk accountability?? How about you promise to just shut your mouth unless you can provide evidence of all these wolf releases? I don't care if you want to rally for extermination and ultimately do more harm to de-listing efforts...but if you can't support with one credible piece of evidence your statements then you should stop lying.
If we are just on the cusp of having all of this evidence of wolf releases how about you just keep your mouth shut until all of this evidence comes pouring in...and once you get all of that credible evidence and WDFW is exposed, by all means come back here and gloat.
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2014, 09:17:59 AM
I wonder if WDFW will mention the female wolf they collard recently in McFarland Cr? Will they continue to ignore the wolf reports in Black Canyon? If they do mention the new collard female will they try to claim she is part of the lookout pack, or claim it is a wolf that "migrated" in from Idaho? Or will they finally confirm another pack in the Methow?
Apparently a wolf/wolves attacked a dog in McFarland creek recently, then came the trapping.
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2014, 09:44:48 AM
:stup: You pack more lies into one post than I could have ever imagined. No wolves were released in Idaho in 2004/5 and wolves HAVE NEVER been released in WA by usfws and wdfw.Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.Yes, USFWS stole the word "migration" in a secret attempt to make everyone think the wolves came from nowhere even though the President and about a 1000 reporters were on hand for their releases in 95 or 96. Too bad the wolf lovers didn't think of that one...I mean who knew there would be reporters present taking pictures when the President of the United States showed up????
What were you saying about stupid people?
Now, in a couple years when there is still not a single shred of evidence that wolves were planted by wdfw or usfws in WA will you shut up? Or will you just come up with more bogus conspiracies to explain away your continued lack of evidence for your absurd claims?
"Caribou migrate, wolves expand! In Idaho Ed Bangs released wolves where they weren't suppose to, people watched as the wildlife disappeared from the release outward, the same with livestock kills, Ed Bangs later admitted they released the wolves. Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.
What were you saying about stupid people?"
You might as well quote the whole post ID. in 2004-2005 the USFWS released another bunch of wolves south of I-90, when Ed Bangs admitted the release he said they had to do it because wolves were not expanding as quick as they had hoped.
How do you bring out agenda driven pro-wolfers? Mention the fact that WDFW will be held accountable for releasing wolves in WA.
You want to talk accountability?? How about you promise to just shut your mouth unless you can provide evidence of all these wolf releases? I don't care if you want to rally for extermination and ultimately do more harm to de-listing efforts...but if you can't support with one credible piece of evidence your statements then you should stop lying.
If we are just on the cusp of having all of this evidence of wolf releases how about you just keep your mouth shut until all of this evidence comes pouring in...and once you get all of that credible evidence and WDFW is exposed, by all means come back here and gloat.
Are you having a little meltdown ID? Or is that just another agenda driven pro-wolfer rant? :chuckle:
No one will be gloating when the truth is exposed, and I doubt anyone will be fired? But at least the people of WA will know the how/why wolves expanded so quickly in WA. and the info might help with a few lawsuits also?
Post by: bearpaw on June 02, 2014, 09:53:12 AM
:stup: You pack more lies into one post than I could have ever imagined. No wolves were released in Idaho in 2004/5 and wolves HAVE NEVER been released in WA by usfws and wdfw.Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.Yes, USFWS stole the word "migration" in a secret attempt to make everyone think the wolves came from nowhere even though the President and about a 1000 reporters were on hand for their releases in 95 or 96. Too bad the wolf lovers didn't think of that one...I mean who knew there would be reporters present taking pictures when the President of the United States showed up????
What were you saying about stupid people?
Now, in a couple years when there is still not a single shred of evidence that wolves were planted by wdfw or usfws in WA will you shut up? Or will you just come up with more bogus conspiracies to explain away your continued lack of evidence for your absurd claims?
"Caribou migrate, wolves expand! In Idaho Ed Bangs released wolves where they weren't suppose to, people watched as the wildlife disappeared from the release outward, the same with livestock kills, Ed Bangs later admitted they released the wolves. Like the word conservation, which was stolen from hunters by the environmentalists, migration was stolen by the USFWS in order to hide wolf releases. In a couple of years WDFW will be exposed publicly for their wolf releases, I wonder if they will have the same response as Ed Bangs.
What were you saying about stupid people?"
You might as well quote the whole post ID. in 2004-2005 the USFWS released another bunch of wolves south of I-90, when Ed Bangs admitted the release he said they had to do it because wolves were not expanding as quick as they had hoped.
How do you bring out agenda driven pro-wolfers? Mention the fact that WDFW will be held accountable for releasing wolves in WA.
You want to talk accountability?? How about you promise to just shut your mouth unless you can provide evidence of all these wolf releases? I don't care if you want to rally for extermination and ultimately do more harm to de-listing efforts...but if you can't support with one credible piece of evidence your statements then you should stop lying.
If we are just on the cusp of having all of this evidence of wolf releases how about you just keep your mouth shut until all of this evidence comes pouring in...and once you get all of that credible evidence and WDFW is exposed, by all means come back here and gloat.
You are starting to go a little over the edge with your antagonistic comments and you provided no evidence to back up your claims against wolfbait. Sort of the kettle calling the pot black if you ask me. What gives? :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2014, 10:49:38 AM
Are my comments antagonistic... :dunno: My point is back up the claims with credible evidence or stop the lies...I'm not sure how to put that more gently.
Fact: USFWS and WDFW NEVER RELEASED WOLVES IN WA STATE. This should not be a difficult one to understand...if they were going to use cover-ups and conspiracies to release wolves it would have been more believable in Idaho where there is much more opposition. Releasing wolves in WA would have been met with open arms...this one doesn't even make sense.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#1 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#1)
Fact: Wolves were not released in Idaho by USFWS/IDFG in 2004/5. Wolfy says this was done because they weren't expanding rapidly enough...yet he also claims wolf numbers expanded to large numbers in ID and decimated game populations throughout Idaho...which is it wolfy?
http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161 (http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161)
I have provided links to the facts I posted. So, either IDFG, WDFW and USFWS are involved in some super conspiracy...or wolves were released in 1995/96 and expanded naturally from there. I'm sticking with the latter in the absence of ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING OTHERWISE.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 02, 2014, 10:56:57 AM
This argument has been going on for several years... it's probably about time to share some of the information that he has been eluding to to back up his claims.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2014, 11:00:57 AM
I do not have any reason to believe that they happened in WA- if there is some evidence (and there would be...the WDFW is not organized enough to that it covertly) it shouldI do find it funny that the same folks who claim the government/WDFW/USFWS are incompetent and incapable of managing a two car parade down main street will then give them credit for pulling off an elaborate conspiracy and cover-up :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on June 02, 2014, 11:14:39 AM
When people intentionally distort the truth and make outrageous claims the burden should be on them to provide CREDIBLE evidence supporting their claim. :dunno: There is enough controversy around wolf management that we don't need these silly distractions about wolf releases that take away from the important issues like de-listing and demonstrating the hunting community is a reasonable group of well informed folks who have an interest in conserving all of Washingtons wildlife...including deer and elk.
Are my comments antagonistic... :dunno: My point is back up the claims with credible evidence or stop the lies...I'm not sure how to put that more gently.
Fact: USFWS and WDFW NEVER RELEASED WOLVES IN WA STATE. This should not be a difficult one to understand...if they were going to use cover-ups and conspiracies to release wolves it would have been more believable in Idaho where there is much more opposition. Releasing wolves in WA would have been met with open arms...this one doesn't even make sense.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#1 (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#1)
Fact: Wolves were not released in Idaho by USFWS/IDFG in 2004/5. Wolfy says this was done because they weren't expanding rapidly enough...yet he also claims wolf numbers expanded to large numbers in ID and decimated game populations throughout Idaho...which is it wolfy?
http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161 (http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161)
I have provided links to the facts I posted. So, either IDFG, WDFW and USFWS are involved in some super conspiracy...or wolves were released in 1995/96 and expanded naturally from there. I'm sticking with the latter in the absence of ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING OTHERWISE.
I hear a lot of accusations that the "pro-management" crowd, (that is my preferred name to be called) has been guilty of name calling and failing to provide credible facts. Then I see a post like your post and ask myself what's up with this?
The road goes both ways, if the "pro wolf" crowd wants to accuse the "pro management" crowd of being factless and of name calling, then you had better play by the rules too. Just sayin....
Maybe wolfbait has proof maybe he doesn't, but I think your comments went beyond the normal level of civility that should be expected on this forum.
I also should note that wolfbait has been banned in the past for his comments to other members. I would expect you should be held to the same level of respect as what has been required of wolfbait and other members.
Post by: bearpaw on June 02, 2014, 11:32:13 AM
I think there is a lot of evidence that wolves move around across state lines and agree that happens constantly. But, I also do not trust the USFWS, the same agency that illegally took Pittman Robertson funds to fund wolf recovery. Do you need a link for proof of that, that info is documented on this forum, it was proven in congress, if you want proof simply look back in the older wolf topics. I will also point out that the past director of Idaho Fish and Game went against the Idaho legislature and gave USFWS service a permit to plant wolves in Idaho after the Idaho legislature passed legislation opposing the wolf plant. That info is also posted on this forum.
I tend to think that WDFW would not release wolves without going through the proper process, but exactly how do we know that WDFW, USFWS, or even some wolf group did not turn wolves or hybrids loose in Washington. The level of honesty and trust in our government is about as low as it has ever been and that is due to the actions of government agencies. We all know there are wolf groups and individuals raising wolves, is there any accountability of what they are raising and where they are going?
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2014, 01:39:30 PM
We have been hearing about "illegal releases" for years. I agree that it is time for Wolfbait to provide some shread of evidence to support those claims, or quiet down about them. I do not have any reason to believe that they happened in WA- if there is some evidence (and there would be...the WDFW is not organized enough to that it covertly) it should have been produced by now.
This argument has been going on for several years... it's probably about time to share some of the information that he has been eluding to to back up his claims.
(if there is some evidence (and there would be...the WDFW is not organized enough to that it covertly)
COVERTLY? Really? WDFW really didn't seem to be trying to hide the releases they were caught at, hell they were in broad daylight.
WC, There are several people anxious to see WDFW exposed for releasing wolves in WA. Some of these people have spent countless hours talking with people who saw WDFW release wolves, and took it as far as they could, but without pictures or filming of the releases, it would be pretty hopeless in court. That being said, waiting a few more years won't hurt. If I'm willing to wait, you shouldn't have any problem, maybe WDFW will be filmed releasing wolves a few more times? :tup:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 02, 2014, 02:01:01 PM
So you're going to continue to beat that drum while we all wait for the Schwan's man story to be verified?? I don't believe that there is any evidence coming forward.We have been hearing about "illegal releases" for years. I agree that it is time for Wolfbait to provide some shread of evidence to support those claims, or quiet down about them. I do not have any reason to believe that they happened in WA- if there is some evidence (and there would be...the WDFW is not organized enough to that it covertly) it should have been produced by now.
This argument has been going on for several years... it's probably about time to share some of the information that he has been eluding to to back up his claims.
(if there is some evidence (and there would be...the WDFW is not organized enough to that it covertly)
COVERTLY? Really? WDFW really didn't seem to be trying to hide the releases they were caught at, hell they were in broad daylight.
WC, There are several people anxious to see WDFW exposed for releasing wolves in WA. Some of these people have spent countless hours talking with people who saw WDFW release wolves, and took it as far as they could, but without pictures or filming of the releases, it would be pretty hopeless in court. That being said, waiting a few more years won't hurt. If I'm willing to wait, you shouldn't have any problem, maybe WDFW will be filmed releasing wolves a few more times? :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2014, 03:21:47 PM
So you're going to continue to beat that drum while we all wait for the Schwan's man story to be verified?? I don't believe that there is any evidence coming forward.We have been hearing about "illegal releases" for years. I agree that it is time for Wolfbait to provide some shread of evidence to support those claims, or quiet down about them. I do not have any reason to believe that they happened in WA- if there is some evidence (and there would be...the WDFW is not organized enough to that it covertly) it should have been produced by now.
This argument has been going on for several years... it's probably about time to share some of the information that he has been eluding to to back up his claims.
(if there is some evidence (and there would be...the WDFW is not organized enough to that it covertly)
COVERTLY? Really? WDFW really didn't seem to be trying to hide the releases they were caught at, hell they were in broad daylight.
WC, There are several people anxious to see WDFW exposed for releasing wolves in WA. Some of these people have spent countless hours talking with people who saw WDFW release wolves, and took it as far as they could, but without pictures or filming of the releases, it would be pretty hopeless in court. That being said, waiting a few more years won't hurt. If I'm willing to wait, you shouldn't have any problem, maybe WDFW will be filmed releasing wolves a few more times? :tup:
There have been many WDFW wolf releases that have been brought out before and after the wolf releases in the Methow Valley in 2009. The one thing we have learned is that, all the ducks have to be in line for the information to go anywhere, I'm sure you would agree.
It doesn't surprise me that you claim WDFW have never released wolves in WA. Every time wolf releases by WDFW are brought up the pro-wolf crowd is first in line to squelch any such talk, any more it's kind of comical, especially with rants like Idahohunter's screech. :chuckle:
At this stage in the game it really doesn't matter except for the fact that at least folks will know how the Canadian wolves really got started in WA and why they expanded so quickly. The Question I'm sure many will have is why did WDFW drag wolf delisting out for so long? What was WDFW's reason to pretend the wolves were "migrating" into WA, when all along they were releasing them? And why did WDFW refuse to confirm wolf packs they knew of unless they were forced to do so. I think these are questions that might take a bite out of WDFW, not only from hunters, and ranchers but also from rural people who have had their pets attacked and killed, plus the hidden danger of wolf attacks on their children and themselves.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2014, 03:34:30 PM
You say it doesn't matter if WDFW released wolves yet you constantly bring it up. I agree that it doesn't matter because the wolves are here...so why do you keep going back to these old, stale lies? Surely you can come up with new conspiracies? I mean for someone who doesn't let facts and logic impede your statements you have to be able to come up with newer and better conspiracies.
Post by: bobcat on June 02, 2014, 03:38:21 PM
Post by: Special T on June 02, 2014, 04:25:40 PM
Why is it so hard to believe that with wolves in Idaho and British Columbia, that they would eventually make their way across the border into Washington? Not to mention, we already had wolves. I saw three in the Chiwawa unit in 1990.
Here is where my BS meter goes off. "IF" wolves naturally migrated We should be seeing a lot more wolves S of I 90 much quicker than we have. We know that wolves packers were in the Psyden unit in the 90's about the same time wolves were reintroduced into ID and YNP. Wolves have moved West a whole lot quicker than they have moved south in the cascades in the same time frame? Why would that be? To me this defies common sense, and have yet to hear a good argument why.
Post by: bobcat on June 02, 2014, 04:34:13 PM
Why is it so hard to believe that with wolves in Idaho and British Columbia, that they would eventually make their way across the border into Washington? Not to mention, we already had wolves. I saw three in the Chiwawa unit in 1990.
Here is where my BS meter goes off. "IF" wolves naturally migrated We should be seeing a lot more wolves S of I 90 much quicker than we have. We know that wolves packers were in the Psyden unit in the 90's about the same time wolves were reintroduced into ID and YNP. Wolves have moved West a whole lot quicker than they have moved south in the cascades in the same time frame? Why would that be? To me this defies common sense, and have yet to hear a good argument why.
Who knows. If wolves could talk maybe we could ask them. But this whole conspiracy theory of how wolves were planted here- sorry but if they had done that it would not have been a secret.
Post by: Special T on June 02, 2014, 04:37:57 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2014, 04:39:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 02, 2014, 04:42:02 PM
Why is it so hard to believe that with wolves in Idaho and British Columbia, that they would eventually make their way across the border into Washington? Not to mention, we already had wolves. I saw three in the Chiwawa unit in 1990.
Here is where my BS meter goes off. "IF" wolves naturally migrated We should be seeing a lot more wolves S of I 90 much quicker than we have. We know that wolves packers were in the Psyden unit in the 90's about the same time wolves were reintroduced into ID and YNP. Wolves have moved West a whole lot quicker than they have moved south in the cascades in the same time frame? Why would that be? To me this defies common sense, and have yet to hear a good argument why.
I don't believe there's "enough" wolves in that country to force some to move out and continue moving south of I-90.
They'll get there, and when they do...we'll know it. People have been seeing them in the GMU's south of I-90 here and there. They're not going to show up and call a party to announce their presence.
:dunno:
Post by: Special T on June 02, 2014, 04:43:25 PM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on June 02, 2014, 04:50:23 PM
Who knows. If wolves could talk maybe we could ask them.
WDFW would probably put a bounty on all wolves to shut them up. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2014, 05:29:06 PM
I think what Wolfbait has said is that he has MANY eye witness accounts and interviews, however he does not have pictures or video footage. With out that there is no way to move forward legally. That does not mean he doesn't have evidence, just not enough to drag WDFW into court.We need CREDIBLE evidence.
Not "some green truck was parked on a road and the tv repair guy saw a dog-like track near it and then 3 weeks later a wdfw truck was parked there and the Schwans man seen him and he seemed nervous and then a black helicopter flew by and I forgot to where my tinfoil hat and so wdfw must have been out planting wolves again." Do I have the story about right? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2014, 07:07:00 AM
Why is it so hard to believe that with wolves in Idaho and British Columbia, that they would eventually make their way across the border into Washington? Not to mention, we already had wolves. I saw three in the Chiwawa unit in 1990.
Here is where my BS meter goes off. "IF" wolves naturally migrated We should be seeing a lot more wolves S of I 90 much quicker than we have. We know that wolves packers were in the Psyden unit in the 90's about the same time wolves were reintroduced into ID and YNP. Wolves have moved West a whole lot quicker than they have moved south in the cascades in the same time frame? Why would that be? To me this defies common sense, and have yet to hear a good argument why.
I don't believe there's "enough" wolves in that country to force some to move out and continue moving south of I-90.
They'll get there, and when they do...we'll know it. People have been seeing them in the GMU's south of I-90 here and there. They're not going to show up and call a party to announce their presence.
:dunno:
"I don't believe there's "enough" wolves in that country to force some to move out and continue moving south of I-90."
With the way WDFW wolves "migrate" wouldn't you think their wolves would have "migrated" south of I-90 at the same rate as they "migrated" into cattle country? Do you think wolves expand or do they just migrate to certain areas with cattle? Do you think wolves would expanded through several thousand acres of prime elk, deer etc. habitat to settle just a few miles outside of Twisp WA?
So jack, now you are going with expanding wolves, not "migrating" wolves? Can you have it both ways to fit an agenda. :dunno: I guess it depends on what time of day it is.
Post by: jackelope on June 03, 2014, 07:21:04 AM
As I understand it....a new pack forms when members of a pack get the boot. They then move to a new home range and form a new pack. East, south, north, west....dunno... How did the pack end up in the Teanaway? Wasn't it the collared female from your neighborhood that ended up down there?
Maybe I'm wrong.
I guess maybe after I reread your post a couple times I now know what you are inferring when you say "migrate" using the quotes around "migrate". As nobody can show that that actually happened yet, 5 years later... I'm still going with my translation of the word "migrate" in quotes as meaning...they walked their on their own 4 legs. Some people can't figure out how they got across the border into the US from Canada...you know, with border patrol and all...or how they got across the state line from Idaho. Still going with the fact that they walked.
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2014, 08:56:35 AM
I don't know what you mean by WDFW wolves and the way they migrate? Please explain to me how new packs form and how/why wolves move to new home ranges...
As I understand it....a new pack forms when members of a pack get the boot. They then move to a new home range and form a new pack. East, south, north, west....dunno... How did the pack end up in the Teanaway? Wasn't it the collared female from your neighborhood that ended up down there?
Maybe I'm wrong.
I guess maybe after I reread your post a couple times I now know what you are inferring when you say "migrate" using the quotes around "migrate". As nobody can show that that actually happened yet, 5 years later... I'm still going with my translation of the word "migrate" in quotes as meaning...they walked their on their own 4 legs. Some people can't figure out how they got across the border into the US from Canada...you know, with border patrol and all...or how they got across the state line from Idaho. Still going with the fact that they walked.
If it will help you jack, I can take out the quotes around migration :roll eyes:
Why did the USFWS have to build kennels to keep wolves in for months before releasing them into the Yellowstone and Idaho? Why did a Canadian wildlife agents say that many of the wolves that the USFWS transported from Canada to release in Idaho and the Yellowstone returned to their home range where they had been trapped wearing collars?
Because wolves will just head back home when they are released away from home. Back in 2003 a WA state highway employee who had just retired, said WDFW took all of the road kill they could find and dumped it up past Mazama for some new wolves they were feeding, trying to get them to stay.
Wolves don't migrate Jack, they expand, this is another area where the fat hits the fire with the lack of honesty from the USFWS and WDFW and migrating wolves. This is what you wrote above>>"I don't believe there's "enough" wolves in that country to force some to move out and continue moving south of I-90.". With your very own statement you suggest that wolves expand not migrate to another state. I'm sure wolves cross back and forth across state/federal lines the same as other wildlife, thats a given. For WDFW to suggest that wolves traveled through thousands of acres of excellent prey base to settle in cattle country, only makes WDFW more of a joke then they already are. But then you already know this. What time is it Jack? :chuckle:
Post by: jackelope on June 03, 2014, 09:22:37 AM
Quote
Wolves don't migrate JackI never used the term "migrate". I used "move". Very generic.
expand/migrate/move/relocate Call it what you want. You didn't answer my question.
Quote
Please explain to me how new packs form and how/why wolves move(migrate/relocate/expand) to new home ranges...
Post by: wolfbait on June 03, 2014, 03:22:59 PM
QuoteWolves don't migrate JackI never used the term "migrate". I used "move". Very generic.
expand/migrate/move/relocate Call it what you want. You didn't answer my question.QuotePlease explain to me how new packs form and how/why wolves move(migrate/relocate/expand) to new home ranges...
Actually Jack there isn't just one answers to your question. There's WDFW's insta-pack which is to load a pair of collared mating wolves in the back of a pickup truck and dump them somewhere in WA, And then there is WDFW's pup drop, which only requires one wolf to be collared. There is the relocate phase, which entitles relocating wolf/wolves from one pack to another, that way they can exclaim in shock "look how far a female from the lookout pack traveled, how in the world did she find the Teanaway pack" followed by more shock. There is The Ed Bangs way, drop a bunch of wolves off where wolves haven't ate their way to yet, speeding up the dispersal. And last but not least there is Scott Fitkin's favorite The wolves have NATURALLY MIGRATED, which include all of the above.
Then there is the simple wolf way, when wolf pups grow older they disperse with other pups from other packs and form new packs. In all cases WDFW ignore these wolves until the wolves are bad wolves and kill someones livestock or dogs. Then WDFW leap to their feet and race to the scene sometimes days later, they arrive to tell the owner it is too late to tell what killed it as " there was nothing left but a pile of maggots", or if the USFWS is with them they will go with "just hide and hip bones left", something defiantly killed it but not wolves.
Mean while the trail cam on the cow is tripping out a different story all together.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 03, 2014, 03:48:30 PM
There's WDFW's insta-pack which is to load a pair of collared mating wolves in the back of a pickup truck and dump them somewhere in WA, And then there is WDFW's pup drop, which only requires one wolf to be collared. There is the relocate phase, which entitles relocating wolf/wolves from one pack to another, that way they can exclaim in shock "look how far a female from the lookout pack traveled, how in the world did she find the Teanaway pack" followed by more shock. There is The Ed Bangs way, drop a bunch of wolves off where wolves haven't ate their way to yet, speeding up the dispersal. And last but not least there is Scott Fitkin's favorite The wolves have NATURALLY MIGRATED, which include all of the above.
Lets see...none of this drivel you posted has a shred of credible evidence to support it. When where and who transported wolves in a pickup? Where's the evidence of WDFW moving wolves around within Washington State? Where is the evidence of moving wolves out to where they haven't migrated naturally because they weren't expanding rapidly enough?
Gee...there doesn't seem to be any. All of this massive wolf relocation and transplanting going on by WDFW and you're the only guy who knows about it... :chuckle: :chuckle: :tinfoil: And yet, you still can not provide any credible evidence...actually, I don't think you have even provided any evidence...credible or otherwise :chuckle:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 03, 2014, 04:55:08 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on June 03, 2014, 06:06:20 PM
Oh, by the way, have you seen many Holsteins? Boney is an understatement and they still produce 30,000 pounds of milk.
Post by: jackelope on June 03, 2014, 10:34:43 PM
QuoteWolves don't migrate JackI never used the term "migrate". I used "move". Very generic.
expand/migrate/move/relocate Call it what you want. You didn't answer my question.QuotePlease explain to me how new packs form and how/why wolves move(migrate/relocate/expand) to new home ranges...
Actually Jack there isn't just one answers to your question. There's WDFW's insta-pack which is to load a pair of collared mating wolves in the back of a pickup truck and dump them somewhere in WA, And then there is WDFW's pup drop, which only requires one wolf to be collared. There is the relocate phase, which entitles relocating wolf/wolves from one pack to another, that way they can exclaim in shock "look how far a female from the lookout pack traveled, how in the world did she find the Teanaway pack" followed by more shock. There is The Ed Bangs way, drop a bunch of wolves off where wolves haven't ate their way to yet, speeding up the dispersal. And last but not least there is Scott Fitkin's favorite The wolves have NATURALLY MIGRATED, which include all of the above.
Then there is the simple wolf way, when wolf pups grow older they disperse with other pups from other packs and form new packs. In all cases WDFW ignore these wolves until the wolves are bad wolves and kill someones livestock or dogs. Then WDFW leap to their feet and race to the scene sometimes days later, they arrive to tell the owner it is too late to tell what killed it as " there was nothing left but a pile of maggots", or if the USFWS is with them they will go with "just hide and hip bones left", something defiantly killed it but not wolves.
Mean while the trail cam on the cow is tripping out a different story all together.
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJA01030.aspx
This species is not migratory but may move seasonally following migrating ungulates within its territory. Gray Wolves also disperse widely. Males in northwestern Montana can move an average of 113 km (70 miles) from their natal territory, and females 77 km (48 miles), before establishing a new territory or joining an existing pack (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Dispersal peaks twice per year; first in January/February and second, in May/June (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Some Gray Wolves are known to have dispersed up to 805 km (500 miles). Dispersal has been documented from Canada, Idaho and Wyoming to Montana. Montana Gray Wolves are also known to have dispersed to Canada, Idaho, and Wyoming.
It's 149 miles from Cle Elum to Twisp via roads. Less through the woods. It's much less than that from the Teanaway to Twisp. Montana seems to think that it's in the realm of possibility that a wolf could move that far. That's probably not good enough though so there must be another way that they got there I guess.
Post by: villageidiot on June 04, 2014, 10:46:53 PM
I think it was a coyote or Bigfoot and wolves were just watching because they are actually very sweet creatures.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 05, 2014, 06:56:25 AM
IMO, it looks like it's been dead for more than a few hours in this picture...
Post by: idahohuntr on June 05, 2014, 08:01:48 AM
The picture of dead Holstein had a very incriminating story. Hired man saw cow with tail up birth sack in evening. Cow dogs go bezerk all night. Hired man heard wolves howling during night. Next morning drove up, saw wolves on hill above cow, calf missing, cow dead, rear end eaten out.what's the incriminating part? Hunters, ranchers, WDFW, state legislature, defenders of Wildlife, conservation NW all these groups one thing I'm sure they can all agree on is that wolves do kill livestock occasionally. That is why there are programs to evaluate kills and reimburse livestock producers.
I think it was a coyote or Bigfoot and wolves were just watching because they are actually very sweet creatures.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk