Post by: wolfbait on June 02, 2014, 09:47:44 PM
A dog was attacked by wolves in McFarland Cr, WDFW set some traps and caught a female wolf. Sources say, WDFW think the McFarland cr wolves are a new wolf pack.
A guy in Pateros got several trail cam pics of wolves up McFarland creek, he also has some pics of wolves in Tiffany meadows and up on the Loup Loup.
How long can WDFW claim every wolf in the Okanogan is part of the lookout pack?
Post by: villageidiot on June 03, 2014, 09:26:29 PM
So if I lie I get to eat but. If I tell the truth I will starve. Eat or starve?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 03, 2014, 09:39:08 PM
If you were given money to study wolves and told to document packs but also told when you reach a certain number of packs we will not give you any more money. You are also told that you and only you have the authority to declare packs. You now are on your own and we will come back and remove your money if and when you reach the designated quota.Your fictional fantasy would be mildly interesting to discuss in some ethics course...but what on earth does it have to do with wolf management in Washington? Oh thats right...nothing.
So if I lie I get to eat but. If I tell the truth I will starve. Eat or starve?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 04, 2014, 10:33:18 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2014, 11:13:18 AM
Wolf funding is not going anywhere. They aren't ignoring wolves to keep the "gravy train" coming. Take a look at Idaho, Montana, Wyoming... they still have jobs and funding.
We watched as the USFWS and IDFG played the same game for fourteen years that the USFWS and WDFW are playing now. You are right WC it has nothing to do with funding, instead it's all about making sure there are so many wolves that no matter what hunting practices are used, there will never be any true wolf control.
And like other states that had to go through the same fraud and corruption, many ranchers will go out of business and economies will be hurt. After all the wolf introduction was never about endangered wolves, but instead causing a hardship on ranchers, rural residents and reducing hunting.
If state and federal people make $$$$$$ thats just part of the program, a few more books can be written filled with how the wolves have balanced the ecosystem, made the aspen grow, and beavers flourish.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 04, 2014, 01:05:06 PM
Regardless of your perspective, WDFW has nothing to do with why wolves are here now. They migrated from other areas naturally. You can blame usfws for all your tinfoil hat conspiracies about ending rural living, but that is not the fault of wdfw...they were not part of the reintroduction. Regardless of whatever wolf managment plan WDFW came up with wolves would still be here and they will be here forever...get used to it and stop living in the distant past. How many more lies will you tell before you give up on your fantasy that wolves will destroy all hunting in Washington?Wolf funding is not going anywhere. They aren't ignoring wolves to keep the "gravy train" coming. Take a look at Idaho, Montana, Wyoming... they still have jobs and funding.After all the wolf introduction was never about endangered wolves, but instead causing a hardship on ranchers, rural residents and reducing hunting.
Post by: wolfbait on June 04, 2014, 09:39:51 PM
Regardless of your perspective, WDFW has nothing to do with why wolves are here now. They migrated from other areas naturally. You can blame usfws for all your tinfoil hat conspiracies about ending rural living, but that is not the fault of wdfw...they were not part of the reintroduction. Regardless of whatever wolf managment plan WDFW came up with wolves would still be here and they will be here forever...get used to it and stop living in the distant past. How many more lies will you tell before you give up on your fantasy that wolves will destroy all hunting in Washington?Wolf funding is not going anywhere. They aren't ignoring wolves to keep the "gravy train" coming. Take a look at Idaho, Montana, Wyoming... they still have jobs and funding.After all the wolf introduction was never about endangered wolves, but instead causing a hardship on ranchers, rural residents and reducing hunting.
Naturally, I bet it was quite the trip :chuckle:
Post by: Houndhunter on June 04, 2014, 09:47:26 PM
If you were given money to study wolves and told to document packs but also told when you reach a certain number of packs we will not give you any more money. You are also told that you and only you have the authority to declare packs. You now are on your own and we will come back and remove your money if and when you reach the designated quota.Your fictional fantasy would be mildly interesting to discuss in some ethics course...but what on earth does it have to do with wolf management in Washington? Oh thats right...nothing.
So if I lie I get to eat but. If I tell the truth I will starve. Eat or starve?
This guy knows more bout wolves and their "management" in EA WA than you ever will, I'd listen up. You might be able to twist his info for saving more wolves......
Post by: mfswallace on June 04, 2014, 09:51:45 PM
Regardless of your perspective, WDFW has nothing to do with why wolves are here now. They migrated from other areas naturally. You can blame usfws for all your tinfoil hat conspiracies about ending rural living, but that is not the fault of wdfw...they were not part of the reintroduction. Regardless of whatever wolf managment plan WDFW came up with wolves would still be here and they will be here forever...get used to it and stop living in the distant past. How many more lies will you tell before you give up on your fantasy that wolves will destroy all hunting in Washington?Wolf funding is not going anywhere. They aren't ignoring wolves to keep the "gravy train" coming. Take a look at Idaho, Montana, Wyoming... they still have jobs and funding.After all the wolf introduction was never about endangered wolves, but instead causing a hardship on ranchers, rural residents and reducing hunting.
:chuckle: :chuckle: you r funny
Post by: idahohuntr on June 04, 2014, 10:20:23 PM
Yeaaaaaaa...in a fantasy world he does. In reality, he is clueless about wolf management and funding wildlife management. But thanks for your input :tup:If you were given money to study wolves and told to document packs but also told when you reach a certain number of packs we will not give you any more money. You are also told that you and only you have the authority to declare packs. You now are on your own and we will come back and remove your money if and when you reach the designated quota.Your fictional fantasy would be mildly interesting to discuss in some ethics course...but what on earth does it have to do with wolf management in Washington? Oh thats right...nothing.
So if I lie I get to eat but. If I tell the truth I will starve. Eat or starve?
This guy knows more bout wolves and their "management" in EA WA than you ever will, I'd listen up. You might be able to twist his info for saving more wolves......
Post by: timberfaller on June 05, 2014, 08:36:07 AM
I know the guy also, I'll let him, if he is so inclined to tell you his "work" background :chuckle:
I've watched and read most of your goings on back and forth post on wolves.
Hey wolfbait, how are those "grizzly's" doing behind Sun Mt.!! :chuckle: :IBCOOL: :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 05, 2014, 10:12:17 PM
Hey spudhunter :chuckle: You might want to heed houndhunters advice ;)
I know the guy also, I'll let him, if he is so inclined to tell you his "work" background :chuckle:
I've watched and read most of your goings on back and forth post on wolves.
Hey wolfbait, how are those "grizzly's" doing behind Sun Mt.!! :chuckle: :IBCOOL: :chuckle:
X2
The Methow Valley hasn't had anymore 99.9% sightings of grizzly bears since the early 1990's. :chuckle: :chuckle: From my understanding WDFW's grizzly bear funding went into introducing wolves. One of our county commissioners did catch WDFW releasing grizzly bears up by the JR campground on the Loup some years back. They tried to lie out of it, but the commissioner went to the top for his answers. :tup:
Folks in the Methow have seen a few in the upper reaches of the Twisp river, and occasionally up towards Harts Pass in the last twenty years.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 09, 2014, 07:37:01 AM
Post by: timberfaller on June 10, 2014, 08:26:00 PM
Your two nemeses are either showing their age(too young) or are just plain clueless as to the "outdoors" :chuckle:
Give me a shout back if you know about the "story" of the Sun Mt Grizzly :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: that I am referring to :chuckle: them are sure some funny looking grizzly tracks!! LOL :chuckle:
Did you ever see the picture of the one Eilis Peters shot at the Mazama junction??
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 10:49:09 PM
Hey Wolfbait,
Your two nemeses are either showing their age(too young) or are just plain clueless as to the "outdoors" :chuckle:
Give me a shout back if you know about the "story" of the Sun Mt Grizzly :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: that I am referring to :chuckle: them are sure some funny looking grizzly tracks!! LOL :chuckle:
Did you ever see the picture of the one Eilis Peters shot at the Mazama junction??
I posted the 99.9% chance of a grizzly bear sighting on WH, it's back in the wolf threads somewhere. :chuckle:
Actually there are three people who shoot blanks for WDFW, one only shows up to defend WDFW's "wolf migrations", soon the falling down starts and then the name calling. The pro-wolf crowd is allowed to call names because they are special. :chuckle:
Hippie Wolf Activist Gets Stoned, Knocks over Lava Lamp & Burns Down Treehouse *** WA - Moon Java Bongmeister, age, 62 has become yet another casuality of the 1960's hippie era -- victim of a painful lava lamp accident. "He was really upset after returning from Idaho to protest the killing of wolves," said his daughter Skylark Daisychain Bongmeister. "He became really depressed when he learned that WDFW had not told him about their recent wolf release in NC WA. Last time I saw him like this was after we got back from a "Stop Killing Houseflies" protest and drum circle rally in San Francisco. His depression led to him smoking up all of his medical marijuana and drinking all of his Mogan David (mad-dog) wine. That's when it happened," said, another daughter by a different mother, Daydream Butterfly Bongmeister. Dad was so stoned he knocked over a lava lamp and started his tree house on fire. He lost everything. His bell bottom pants, his love bead necklaces, all of his head-bands, his Grateful Dead albums, his Woodstock posters and even his prized Patchouli Oil Collection. "It's all those Idaho hunters fault. They don't respect the wolf spirits and the energy life forces in the cosmic soup of life, said Skylark Daisychain Bongmeister. "It's time for the Bongmeister family to come together and 'spark a bowl" of ganja and try to forget WDFW's DNA tested migrating wolves," she said... "
Post by: mountainman on June 10, 2014, 11:10:41 PM
lol :chuckle: now that IS pretty funny!!Hey Wolfbait,
Your two nemeses are either showing their age(too young) or are just plain clueless as to the "outdoors" :chuckle:
Give me a shout back if you know about the "story" of the Sun Mt Grizzly :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: that I am referring to :chuckle: them are sure some funny looking grizzly tracks!! LOL :chuckle:
Did you ever see the picture of the one Eilis Peters shot at the Mazama junction??
I posted the 99.9% chance of a grizzly bear sighting on WH, it's back in the wolf threads somewhere. :chuckle:
Actually there are three people who shoot blanks for WDFW, one only shows up to defend WDFW's "wolf migrations", soon the falling down starts and then they name calling. The pro-wolf crowd is allowed to call names because they are special. :chuckle:
Hippie Wolf Activist Gets Stoned, Knocks over Lava Lamp & Burns Down Treehouse *** WA - Moon Java Bongmeister, age, 62 has become yet another casuality of the 1960's hippie era -- victim of a painful lava lamp accident. "He was really upset after returning from Idaho to protest the killing of wolves," said his daughter Skylark Daisychain Bongmeister. "He became really depressed when he learned that WDFW had not told him about their recent wolf release in NC WA. Last time I saw him like this was after we got back from a "Stop Killing Houseflies" protest and drum circle rally in San Francisco. His depression led to him smoking up all of his medical marijuana and drinking all of his Mogan David (mad-dog) wine. That's when it happened," said, another daughter by a different mother, Daydream Butterfly Bongmeister. Dad was so stoned he knocked over a lava lamp and started his tree house on fire. He lost everything. His bell bottom pants, his love bead necklaces, all of his head-bands, his Grateful Dead albums, his Woodstock posters and even his prized Patchouli Oil Collection. "It's all those Idaho hunters fault. They don't respect the wolf spirits and the energy life forces in the cosmic soup of life, said Skylark Daisychain Bongmeister. "It's time for the Bongmeister family to come together and 'spark a bowl" of ganja and try to forget WDFW's DNA tested migrating wolves," she said... "
Post by: timberfaller on June 11, 2014, 08:55:49 AM
I still remember the "hippies" who turned a culvert in the forest into their "home" for the summer :chuckle:
They were getting back to the "good ole days" :chuckle: poaching everything in site :bash:
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2014, 09:03:02 AM
I still remember the "hippies" who turned a culvert in the forest into their "home" for the summer :chuckle:
Sounds like the picture of the "wolf trap" that wolfbait had a few years ago.
Post by: Houndhunter on June 11, 2014, 10:52:37 PM
Hey Wolfbait,
Your two nemeses are either showing their age(too young) or are just plain clueless as to the "outdoors" :chuckle:
Give me a shout back if you know about the "story" of the Sun Mt Grizzly :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: that I am referring to :chuckle: them are sure some funny looking grizzly tracks!! LOL :chuckle:
Did you ever see the picture of the one Eilis Peters shot at the Mazama junction??
I'd say one nemeses, I think Wacoyotehunter knows wolves are here to stay and takes a more practical approach. I would bet that Wacoyotehunter would be a lot happier if he didn't have to worry bout wolves interfering with his hounds.
Post by: Romulus1297 on June 11, 2014, 11:15:58 PM
Good one Wolfbait, sounds so true!!I remember hippies too but they lived in our barn and called their leafy vegetables food :yike:
I still remember the "hippies" who turned a culvert in the forest into their "home" for the summer :chuckle:
They were getting back to the "good ole days" :chuckle: poaching everything in site :bash:
Post by: timberfaller on June 12, 2014, 09:10:59 AM
Post by: AspenBud on June 12, 2014, 03:23:28 PM
Which commissioner? This sounds like another "big story".... breaking news!!
Indeed, which one?
Post by: Caretaker on June 12, 2014, 03:46:59 PM
So if I lie I get to eat but. If I tell the truth I will starve. Eat or starve?
------------------
Now there is some truth.
Storybook time from the Chronicles of Caretaker....
I remember some years back on a guided fishing trip way north of the Canadian border, the guide had baited a wolf and shot it, it had a collar on it which he turned in to the the Canadian Fish and Game, they determined that wolf was released in Portland 20 years ago and had migrated some 16 hrs north of the border. Damn.
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2014, 06:12:10 PM
If you were given money to study wolves and told to document packs but also told when you reach a certain number of packs we will not give you any more money. You are also told that you and only you have the authority to declare packs. You now are on your own and we will come back and remove your money if and when you reach the designated quota.
So if I lie I get to eat but. If I tell the truth I will starve. Eat or starve?
------------------
Now there is some truth.
Storybook time from the Chronicles of Caretaker....
I remember some years back on a guided fishing trip way north of the Canadian border, the guide had baited a wolf and shot it, it had a collar on it which he turned in to the the Canadian Fish and Game, they determined that wolf was released in Portland 20 years ago and had migrated some 16 hrs north of the border. Damn.
Thanks for the info Caretaker.
In 2010 we talk to a guy who worked for Canadian wildlife, he said we would be shock to know the number of wolves that came back to Canada wearing collars and how many times the USFWS came back and bought more wolves.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 13, 2014, 08:48:21 PM
HAHAHA I had forgotten about that trap. I wonder how many he caught... doubtless he caught hundreds, after all- there is a wolf hiding behind every tree in the Methow. :)
I still remember the "hippies" who turned a culvert in the forest into their "home" for the summer :chuckle:
Sounds like the picture of the "wolf trap" that wolfbait had a few years ago.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 13, 2014, 09:52:19 PM
Well...to be fair they are not behind the trees...they are in the back of every green pickup or wdfw rig up that way :chuckle: :chuckle:HAHAHA I had forgotten about that trap. I wonder how many he caught... doubtless he caught hundreds, after all- there is a wolf hiding behind every tree in the Methow. :)
I still remember the "hippies" who turned a culvert in the forest into their "home" for the summer :chuckle:
Sounds like the picture of the "wolf trap" that wolfbait had a few years ago.
Post by: wolfbait on June 14, 2014, 11:19:11 AM
HAHAHA I had forgotten about that trap. I wonder how many he caught... doubtless he caught hundreds, after all- there is a wolf hiding behind every tree in the Methow. :)
I still remember the "hippies" who turned a culvert in the forest into their "home" for the summer :chuckle:
Sounds like the picture of the "wolf trap" that wolfbait had a few years ago.
Really? Jack was the only person on W-H who PM me wanting all the details on the wolf trap, he seemed quite disappointed when I sent him a picture of a sixty foot x four ft culvert that someone had sprayed Wolf Trap on the top. :chuckle:
When I posted the first info of WDFW releasing wolves in the Methow, once again Jack and WC were the only two on W-H who PM fishing for all the info I had. And now of course they are two of the few who believe the wolves decided to settle down a few miles outside of Twisp, “This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”. Thank goodness we now know all about the DNA testing of the Lookout Pack.
I think it's great we have pro-wolfers on W-H and other sites, it give those of us who want the truth more incentive to seek out the truth, not go with the BS lies of environmental groups, WDFW and the USFWS. :tup:
Post by: timberfaller on June 15, 2014, 08:57:52 PM
I am going to make a assumption that there are some on here that are to young to know what a "hippie" is or was.
Most people around here when you say "whale culvert" they know what picture comes to mind.
Back in the 70's there were HUGE round culverts out in the forest, some were to be installed, some had been removed. Hippies would take these and turn them into "homes" for the summer. Its amazing what people will do when they think something is "free" for their use. A 12 foot diameter tube can be turned into a real nice shed!! :chuckle:
:chuckle: I seen a culvert with "wolf trap" painted on it :chuckle: plus other "signs" painted on other culverts!! Kinda like someone was having a "Kilroy was here" fetish :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2014, 08:49:02 PM
http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/06/12/collared-gray-wolf-will-help-statewide-study/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/06/12/collared-gray-wolf-will-help-statewide-study/)
Funny how WDFW didn't mention that they caught this wolf in McFarland CR, well not really. The lookout pack is denning up in Alder Cr..
Just another wolf added to the Lookout pack, as the people of Okanogan county watch the joke called WDFW work their wolf magic.
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 16, 2014, 11:55:12 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2014, 10:07:50 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2014, 12:12:13 PM
At that point they would be downlisted. We are getting there... I suspect the WDFW will find a couple additional breeding pairs this year, then they have to document the pup survival... we are a few years down the road I would guess. Even when they are delisted, it's going to be a huge battle to get hunting on the landscape. The WDFW better have it's stuff together for the lawsuits that are sure to come.
"The WDFW better have it's stuff together for the lawsuits that are sure to come."
Especially when folks find out how most of the wolves really ended up in WA! I wonder how they will spin that little bit of info? :yike:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2014, 11:16:36 PM
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 17, 2014, 11:17:19 PM
At that point they would be downlisted. We are getting there... I suspect the WDFW will find a couple additional breeding pairs this year, then they have to document the pup survival... we are a few years down the road I would guess. Even when they are delisted, it's going to be a huge battle to get hunting on the landscape. The WDFW better have it's stuff together for the lawsuits that are sure to come.
"The WDFW better have it's stuff together for the lawsuits that are sure to come."
Especially when folks find out how most of the wolves really ended up in WA! I wonder how they will spin that little bit of info? :yike:
I'm not looking for an argument; just an honest question...
How do you figure the folks are going to find out, what you beleive to be the truth of how wolves ended up in WA?
IMO- What would it matter if what you call the truth came out? All they would do is deny it. Seems like a he said she said debate. Do you agree?
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2014, 09:19:10 AM
At that point they would be downlisted. We are getting there... I suspect the WDFW will find a couple additional breeding pairs this year, then they have to document the pup survival... we are a few years down the road I would guess. Even when they are delisted, it's going to be a huge battle to get hunting on the landscape. The WDFW better have it's stuff together for the lawsuits that are sure to come.
"The WDFW better have it's stuff together for the lawsuits that are sure to come."
Especially when folks find out how most of the wolves really ended up in WA! I wonder how they will spin that little bit of info? :yike:
I'm not looking for an argument; just an honest question...
How do you figure the folks are going to find out, what you beleive to be the truth of how wolves ended up in WA?
IMO- What would it matter if what you call the truth came out? All they would do is deny it. Seems like a he said she said debate. Do you agree?
I think it matters because it will show that WDFW hurt the state of WA on purpose, by introducing wolves and then pretending they were migrating from Canada or? Uncontrolled wolves will negatively affect everyone in WA state in one way or another. WDFW are dragging delisting out as long as they can, some of the questions will be: knowing what has happened in ID, MT, and Idaho, why did WDFW release wolves in WA and pretend they weren't there, why didn't WDFW confirm wolves as they released them, why didn't they collar all of the wolves they released, why did they release wolves in cattle country> if you will notice the only time WDFW are forced to confirm wolf packs is when WDFW confirm wolf killed livestock or the wolves are hanging at a school bus stop and reported to the WSP, such as happened in 2008 with the lookout pack. Wolves have a negative affect on rural economies, ask the folks in ID, MT, and Wyoming, I'm sure the people who's businesses were or are being hurt by WDFW's releasing of wolves will have several questions also.
At this point WDFW have been caught several times releasing wolves in WA, and they deny it when ask and run with their naturally migration BS. I think within the next two years there will be an investigation of WDFW, specifically about where WA's wolves came from and the end results won't be the wolves migrated from some place in Canada, Alberta British Columbia or Idaho.
Post by: AspenBud on June 18, 2014, 10:11:46 AM
The wolves are here and right or wrong the majority of the public arguably wants them. State and national forests belong to everyone so it doesn't really matter what people living next to them think. The focus should be on getting management of them in place, not this nonsense.
Post by: timberfaller on June 18, 2014, 11:11:04 AM
Thats all fine and dandy, IF its good enough for US who have to live next to them, THEN "city dwellers" need to have some close by also :tup:
ALL housing developments need to have at least one breeding pair within a 100 yds of the the main entrances.
Sounds like a plan to me!! :IBCOOL:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2014, 11:46:57 AM
So that's scientific wildlife management, what some patchouli oil store owner in Seattle thinks should happen in the Methow? Sometimes the feces that comes out of your mouth amazes me. I'm sure the majority of the population of King and Pierce Co.s could be convinced by you wolf lovers that we need four different species of wolves for biological diversity. You could probably also convince them that polar bears are endangered in WA. That doesn't mean it makes any wildlife management sense whatsoever. The majority of the public believe the crap that you and the HSUS put on the TV. They do no research and they're willing to cast a vote based on no facts. That's why wildlife management is supposed to be in the hands of biologists and game management officers.
Post by: AspenBud on June 18, 2014, 12:05:06 PM
"The wolves are here and right or wrong the majority of the public arguably wants them. State and national forests belong to everyone so it doesn't really matter what people living next to them think. The focus should be on getting management of them in place, not this nonsense."
So that's scientific wildlife management, what some patchouli oil store owner in Seattle thinks should happen in the Methow? Sometimes the feces that comes out of your mouth amazes me. I'm sure the majority of the population of King and Pierce Co.s could be convinced by you wolf lovers that we need four different species of wolves for biological diversity. You could probably also convince them that polar bears are endangered in WA. That doesn't mean it makes any wildlife management sense whatsoever. The majority of the public believe the crap that you and the HSUS put on the TV. They do no research and they're willing to cast a vote based on no facts. That's why wildlife management is supposed to be in the hands of biologists and game management officers.
You can splutter about it all you want, but public land is public land. That state or national forest that's next to you belongs just as much to someone in Seattle as it does to you and, electoral college aside, this is not a minority rules country.
I'm not saying people that have to live with wolves don't have a valid gripe that needs to be made to those who don't. But at the end of the day the majority of the public gets what the majority wants, right or wrong, like it or not.
I do however agree that wildlife management decisions should be left to biologists and wildlife managers. I was just making the point that if you brought it to a vote, the outcome would most likely not be favorable for those opposed to wolves. People would most likely be indifferent to whether they were released or not, which again is why the whole "were wolves released illegally" discussion is a waste of time.
Post by: Alchase on June 18, 2014, 12:12:25 PM
"The wolves are here and right or wrong the majority of the public arguably wants them. State and national forests belong to everyone so it doesn't really matter what people living next to them think. The focus should be on getting management of them in place, not this nonsense."
So that's scientific wildlife management, what some patchouli oil store owner in Seattle thinks should happen in the Methow? Sometimes the feces that comes out of your mouth amazes me. I'm sure the majority of the population of King and Pierce Co.s could be convinced by you wolf lovers that we need four different species of wolves for biological diversity. You could probably also convince them that polar bears are endangered in WA. That doesn't mean it makes any wildlife management sense whatsoever. The majority of the public believe the crap that you and the HSUS put on the TV. They do no research and they're willing to cast a vote based on no facts. That's why wildlife management is supposed to be in the hands of biologists and game management officers.
pianoman9701,
the way I read that was, just like the way the vote banning hound hunting as an example, the total population of people who vote like the "patchouli oil" crown of Seattle, Vashon Island, etc...
out number the rest of us 2 to 1 in this state.
So spending time "infighting" is not to our benefit.
I could be wrong, it has been known to happen on occasion, LOL
Post by: AspenBud on June 18, 2014, 12:13:57 PM
"The wolves are here and right or wrong the majority of the public arguably wants them. State and national forests belong to everyone so it doesn't really matter what people living next to them think. The focus should be on getting management of them in place, not this nonsense."
So that's scientific wildlife management, what some patchouli oil store owner in Seattle thinks should happen in the Methow? Sometimes the feces that comes out of your mouth amazes me. I'm sure the majority of the population of King and Pierce Co.s could be convinced by you wolf lovers that we need four different species of wolves for biological diversity. You could probably also convince them that polar bears are endangered in WA. That doesn't mean it makes any wildlife management sense whatsoever. The majority of the public believe the crap that you and the HSUS put on the TV. They do no research and they're willing to cast a vote based on no facts. That's why wildlife management is supposed to be in the hands of biologists and game management officers.
pianoman9701,
the way I read that was, just like the way the vote banning hound hunting as an example, the total population of people who vote like the "patchouli oil" crown of Seattle, Vashon Island, etc...
out number the rest of us 2 to 1 in this state.
So spending time "infighting" is not to our benefit.
I could be wrong, it has been known to happen on occasion, LOL
:yeah:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2014, 12:14:29 PM
You talk and talk about what good wolves are for the ecosystem and how we need them and that proper management was applied to allow them back in, and then you throw all of that out the window to support public opinion instead of wildlife management to manage the wolves. You have zero integrity. You're a shill for the anti-hunting crowd who wants to use wolves to end our sport and heritage.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2014, 12:15:50 PM
"The wolves are here and right or wrong the majority of the public arguably wants them. State and national forests belong to everyone so it doesn't really matter what people living next to them think. The focus should be on getting management of them in place, not this nonsense."
So that's scientific wildlife management, what some patchouli oil store owner in Seattle thinks should happen in the Methow? Sometimes the feces that comes out of your mouth amazes me. I'm sure the majority of the population of King and Pierce Co.s could be convinced by you wolf lovers that we need four different species of wolves for biological diversity. You could probably also convince them that polar bears are endangered in WA. That doesn't mean it makes any wildlife management sense whatsoever. The majority of the public believe the crap that you and the HSUS put on the TV. They do no research and they're willing to cast a vote based on no facts. That's why wildlife management is supposed to be in the hands of biologists and game management officers.
pianoman9701,
the way I read that was, just like the way the vote banning hound hunting as an example, the total population of people who vote like the "patchouli oil" crown of Seattle, Vashon Island, etc...
out number the rest of us 2 to 1 in this state.
So spending time "infighting" is not to our benefit.
I could be wrong, it has been known to happen on occasion, LOL
"In-fighting" would imply that Aspen is part of our group. He isn't.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 18, 2014, 12:16:18 PM
"The wolves are here and right or wrong the majority of the public arguably wants them. State and national forests belong to everyone so it doesn't really matter what people living next to them think. The focus should be on getting management of them in place, not this nonsense."A large part of managing wildlife is managing to the publics desires. That is why we have to be intelligent in our discussions of wolf management and not spout conspiracy lies that turn voters away from the idea that we can hunt ethically and conserve all of Washingtons wildlife. So, yes, like it or not (and most rural citizens do not) the guy in Seattle's vote counts just as much as the guy in the Methow. Public resources are public...end of discussion.
So that's scientific wildlife management, what some patchouli oil store owner in Seattle thinks should happen in the Methow? Sometimes the feces that comes out of your mouth amazes me. I'm sure the majority of the population of King and Pierce Co.s could be convinced by you wolf lovers that we need four different species of wolves for biological diversity. You could probably also convince them that polar bears are endangered in WA. That doesn't mean it makes any wildlife management sense whatsoever. The majority of the public believe the crap that you and the HSUS put on the TV. They do no research and they're willing to cast a vote based on no facts. That's why wildlife management is supposed to be in the hands of biologists and game management officers.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 18, 2014, 12:20:31 PM
I don't care what most of the public think they want. That has nothing to do with game management. They have no idea of what management goals are or why the bios do what they do. Most aren't even aware there are bios in the field. With regards to game management, most of the public are ignorant idiots. And you and your ilk feed on that, and it's wrong. You show them pretty pictures of wolf pups while farmer Joe loses his living and we lose our ungulates.Piano- please go read about the North American Model of Wildlife Management. The public decides how their resources should be managed, and that sets the stage for how professional biologists manage the public's wildlife resources. It is unfortunate you continue to make personal attacks against Aspen who is indeed a hunter from my understanding. Seriously, please go read up on the NAMWC...it is the greatest system of game management in the world.
You talk and talk about what good wolves are for the ecosystem and how we need them and that proper management was applied to allow them back in, and then you throw all of that out the window to support public opinion instead of wildlife management to manage the wolves. You have zero integrity. You're a shill for the anti-hunting crowd who wants to use wolves to end our sport and heritage.
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 18, 2014, 03:32:37 PM
How much damage have wolves done in Washington, compared to where Idaho and Montana were at this point in their wolf management plan. Using a time table. So from the first "official" documented wolf pack to 5 years existence, 10 years, 15 years, etc.
I am curious to hear if Washington is fairing better or worse than where Montana and Idaho were at this point. My guess would be worse, because there are more wolves than ever, which are rapidly moving in to Washington from the other western states.
And I am NOT looking for an argument. When I ask questions, I am being genuine and looking for intelligent answers. I prefise this, because I don't want anyone to be offended or miss-interpret my intentions. This is a highly sensitive topic, which people can be easily miss-understood. Thank you...
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 18, 2014, 06:09:27 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 18, 2014, 06:16:38 PM
I personally know wolfbait and trust him with his knowledge about the lies from the WDFW more than anybody on here. :tup:I would like to agree with you two...but then all 3 of us would be wrong :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: mountainman on June 18, 2014, 06:44:12 PM
that would make 4 of us :chuckle:I personally know wolfbait and trust him with his knowledge about the lies from the WDFW more than anybody on here. :tup:I would like to agree with you two...but then all 3 of us would be wrong :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2014, 10:03:23 PM
Question...
How much damage have wolves done in Washington, compared to where Idaho and Montana were at this point in their wolf management plan. Using a time table. So from the first "official" documented wolf pack to 5 years existence, 10 years, 15 years, etc.
I am curious to hear if Washington is fairing better or worse than where Montana and Idaho were at this point. My guess would be worse, because there are more wolves than ever, which are rapidly moving in to Washington from the other western states.
And I am NOT looking for an argument. When I ask questions, I am being genuine and looking for intelligent answers. I prefise this, because I don't want anyone to be offended or miss-interpret my intentions. This is a highly sensitive topic, which people can be easily miss-understood. Thank you...
Washintgton six years after first confirmed wolf pack and WDFW refuse to acknowledge the impact wolves are having on the game herds. Below is an article on the impact wolves had on elk in six years or so. In the Methow there are very few elk, deer are the main source of Predator/wolf prey. WDFW Biologist continue to say "for the amount of hunters that showed up, hunting was a great success". In 2007-08 we fed over a hundred head of deer with our horses/mules, since then it has dwindled down to last winter at four to six deer, ranchers in the area report the same decline.
Impacts of the Wolf introduction into the YNP and Idaho
2002
Estimated 663 wolves including 43 breeding pairs in tri-state area. Third year of 3 year countdown. USFWS announces
wolves are recovered in tri-state area. http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf.htm)
By the 2003 hunting season (which included the late hunts in Jan.-Feb. 2004), the number of permits had been cut in half, from 2,880 to only 1,400, yet elk numbers continued to decline.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2017%20Feb-Mar%202006%20The%20Northern%20Yellowstone%20elk%20herd.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2017%20Feb-Mar%202006%20The%20Northern%20Yellowstone%20elk%20herd.pdf)
Six Years into the Yellowstone wolf introduction
November 22, 2002
Yellowstone Wolf Experiment Out of Control
— by Jim Slinsky
It is with great sadness that I write this column. You didn’t have to be a wildlife biologist to foresee the outcome when you mix Canadian timber wolves with the wildlife of Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone’s wildlife populations have plummeted. Wolves are brutal, vicious predators and have a tremendous impact on all wildlife in any ecosystem.
I am not exaggerating. I radio interviewed a rancher, Mr. Robert T. Fanning Jr. and a big game outfitter, Mr. William Hoppe, both of whom live within sight of Yellowstone National Park. It is a whole “New World” out there since Canadian timber wolves were introduced.
Mr. Fanning is the founder of "Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd" and Mr. Hoppe is the President. From investing hours on the phone with these gentlemen I believe the American people and the American sportsmen are not hearing the straight story on this experiment that’s flat out of control. Montana wildlife needs some relief and so do it’s private landowners, big game outfitters and ranchers.
The original plan was for 78-100 wolves to be introduced into Yellowstone. Of course, you realize hunting is not permitted in Yellowstone or any other National Park. US Fish and Wildlife personnel were concerned wildlife populations were too high and impacting flora and fauna. (Sound familiar?) The environmentalists were screaming their theme of returning to the “Natural Order” of life in the wilds. The project went forward.
The elk herd in Yellowstone was estimated at 20,000 animals at the time of the introduction of the wolves. Historic documents reveal that Yellowstone’s elk, the largest migratory elk herd in the US, was about 30,000 at the turn of the 20th century.
In less than 10 years the effect wolves have had on Yellowstone’s wildlife has been nothing less than devastating. Elk populations hang around 10,000; the moose and deer are almost completely gone. Antelope went from 600 to 200 specimens. Sheep populations have fallen from 300 to 40, possibly an inadequate amount to repopulate the Park. Wolves are attacking horses, mules, livestock and stalking children. The economic health of the region has collapsed and so has the outfitting business north of Yellowstone.
The wolves are multiplying at the rate of 34% a year. There are now 370 wolves in Yellowstone and 770 in the tri-state area of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Wildlife in that region is getting hammered.
Forget what you heard about wolves killing only the weak and sick. Wolves are canines and like dogs, they kill by instinct and for fun. Aerial photographs document dead, red wildlife carcasses over the landscape. Wolves practice “surplus killing” whether they are hungry or not. The wildlife of the region can not rest and they live in constant fear. Like coyotes following a deer herd, a wolf pack pursuit is relentless. One wolf will kill 23-25 mature elk a year, not counting calves. Now multiply that by 770 wolves.
The recruitment of newborn game animals into their populations has been the hardest hit. Elk calf survival is averaging 14 out of every 100. In high-density wolf areas, only 4 out of every 100 calves survive the wolf packs. Keep in mind, these wolves are not native to the region. The Rocky Mountain wolf at 80 pounds, which hunts in pairs, has been displaced by this Canadian gray wolf, which hunts in packs. This predatory machine has no predator.
The Montana Department of Game, Fish and Parks has applied to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for de-listing of the wolf from “threatened” to “game” animal status. A decision will be made in December. Environmental groups have vowed to sue and tie this up in court for years. The environmentalists will stab the US F&W Service in the back in the process. They both worked together to introduce the wolves. The residents of that region desperately need relief and start the process of controlling this insidious predator.
Wolf introduction is earmarked for all of our western states. We now know what this predator can do to our wildlife, sport hunting and the economies of these states. We also know they are being used as a divisive tool against the private property owning Americans living in that region.
We simply must say "no" to wolf reintroduction. Sportsmen, private landowners and all Americans need to recognize this program as eco-terrorism on our wildlife. It is an obvious attempt to end sport hunting.
Bill Hoppe suggests if Easterners have any doubt about the brutality and devastation of wolves, they only need come to Yellowstone and witness the carnage. We only need watch the ground turn red from the blood of our valued wildlife. We only need listen to the crying of an animal being consumed alive.
We only need listen to their screams of agony.
About the Author
Jim Slinsky, host of Outdoor Talk Network, has been an avid hunter and fisherman for over forty years. Taught by his father, Jim was shooting and fishing before he ever started school. Equally capable with a fly rod, baitcasting, spinning gear, bow, rifle, shotgun and handgun, Jim believes variety is the key to the total outdoor experience. Freshwater, saltwater, small game, big game, Jim enjoys it all and is in the field every chance he gets. As a current member of the Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association, Jim has begun to write about many of his experiences and the issues that sportsmen face in our ever-changing world. Jim is an active rod and gun builder, precision handloader, English setter dog breeder, multi-species fisherman, former college professor, active conservationist and staunch supporter of individual freedoms. His favorite modified quotation is, "I can't remember a day in the outdoors I didn't like." Every show is dedicated to his father, the late, great, Jim Slinsky Sr., "His hunting and fishing plans always included me." The show is Jim's full-time endeavor http://www.theoutdoorlodge.com/features/articles/outdoors/yellowstone_wolf_experiment.html (http://www.theoutdoorlodge.com/features/articles/outdoors/yellowstone_wolf_experiment.html)
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2014, 10:17:55 PM
Question...
How much damage have wolves done in Washington, compared to where Idaho and Montana were at this point in their wolf management plan. Using a time table. So from the first "official" documented wolf pack to 5 years existence, 10 years, 15 years, etc.
I am curious to hear if Washington is fairing better or worse than where Montana and Idaho were at this point. My guess would be worse, because there are more wolves than ever, which are rapidly moving in to Washington from the other western states.
And I am NOT looking for an argument. When I ask questions, I am being genuine and looking for intelligent answers. I prefise this, because I don't want anyone to be offended or miss-interpret my intentions. This is a highly sensitive topic, which people can be easily miss-understood. Thank you...
Washintgton six years after first confirmed wolf pack and WDFW refuse to acknowledge the impact wolves are having on the game herds. Below is an article on the impact wolves had on elk in six years or so. In the Methow there are very few elk, deer are the main source of Predator/wolf prey. WDFW Biologist continue to say "for the amount of hunters that showed up, hunting was a great success". In 2007-08 we fed over a hundred head of deer with our horses/mules, since then it has dwindled down to last winter at four to six deer, ranchers in the area report the same decline.
Impacts of the Wolf introduction into the YNP and Idaho
2002
Estimated 663 wolves including 43 breeding pairs in tri-state area. Third year of 3 year countdown. USFWS announces
wolves are recovered in tri-state area. http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf.htm (http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf.htm)
By the 2003 hunting season (which included the late hunts in Jan.-Feb. 2004), the number of permits had been cut in half, from 2,880 to only 1,400, yet elk numbers continued to decline.
http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2017%20Feb-Mar%202006%20The%20Northern%20Yellowstone%20elk%20herd.pdf (http://idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%2017%20Feb-Mar%202006%20The%20Northern%20Yellowstone%20elk%20herd.pdf)
Six Years into the Yellowstone wolf introduction
November 22, 2002
Yellowstone Wolf Experiment Out of Control
— by Jim Slinsky
It is with great sadness that I write this column. You didn’t have to be a wildlife biologist to foresee the outcome when you mix Canadian timber wolves with the wildlife of Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone’s wildlife populations have plummeted. Wolves are brutal, vicious predators and have a tremendous impact on all wildlife in any ecosystem.
I am not exaggerating. I radio interviewed a rancher, Mr. Robert T. Fanning Jr. and a big game outfitter, Mr. William Hoppe, both of whom live within sight of Yellowstone National Park. It is a whole “New World” out there since Canadian timber wolves were introduced.
Mr. Fanning is the founder of "Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd" and Mr. Hoppe is the President. From investing hours on the phone with these gentlemen I believe the American people and the American sportsmen are not hearing the straight story on this experiment that’s flat out of control. Montana wildlife needs some relief and so do it’s private landowners, big game outfitters and ranchers.
The original plan was for 78-100 wolves to be introduced into Yellowstone. Of course, you realize hunting is not permitted in Yellowstone or any other National Park. US Fish and Wildlife personnel were concerned wildlife populations were too high and impacting flora and fauna. (Sound familiar?) The environmentalists were screaming their theme of returning to the “Natural Order” of life in the wilds. The project went forward.
The elk herd in Yellowstone was estimated at 20,000 animals at the time of the introduction of the wolves. Historic documents reveal that Yellowstone’s elk, the largest migratory elk herd in the US, was about 30,000 at the turn of the 20th century.
In less than 10 years the effect wolves have had on Yellowstone’s wildlife has been nothing less than devastating. Elk populations hang around 10,000; the moose and deer are almost completely gone. Antelope went from 600 to 200 specimens. Sheep populations have fallen from 300 to 40, possibly an inadequate amount to repopulate the Park. Wolves are attacking horses, mules, livestock and stalking children. The economic health of the region has collapsed and so has the outfitting business north of Yellowstone.
The wolves are multiplying at the rate of 34% a year. There are now 370 wolves in Yellowstone and 770 in the tri-state area of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Wildlife in that region is getting hammered.
Forget what you heard about wolves killing only the weak and sick. Wolves are canines and like dogs, they kill by instinct and for fun. Aerial photographs document dead, red wildlife carcasses over the landscape. Wolves practice “surplus killing” whether they are hungry or not. The wildlife of the region can not rest and they live in constant fear. Like coyotes following a deer herd, a wolf pack pursuit is relentless. One wolf will kill 23-25 mature elk a year, not counting calves. Now multiply that by 770 wolves.
The recruitment of newborn game animals into their populations has been the hardest hit. Elk calf survival is averaging 14 out of every 100. In high-density wolf areas, only 4 out of every 100 calves survive the wolf packs. Keep in mind, these wolves are not native to the region. The Rocky Mountain wolf at 80 pounds, which hunts in pairs, has been displaced by this Canadian gray wolf, which hunts in packs. This predatory machine has no predator.
The Montana Department of Game, Fish and Parks has applied to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for de-listing of the wolf from “threatened” to “game” animal status. A decision will be made in December. Environmental groups have vowed to sue and tie this up in court for years. The environmentalists will stab the US F&W Service in the back in the process. They both worked together to introduce the wolves. The residents of that region desperately need relief and start the process of controlling this insidious predator.
Wolf introduction is earmarked for all of our western states. We now know what this predator can do to our wildlife, sport hunting and the economies of these states. We also know they are being used as a divisive tool against the private property owning Americans living in that region.
We simply must say "no" to wolf reintroduction. Sportsmen, private landowners and all Americans need to recognize this program as eco-terrorism on our wildlife. It is an obvious attempt to end sport hunting.
Bill Hoppe suggests if Easterners have any doubt about the brutality and devastation of wolves, they only need come to Yellowstone and witness the carnage. We only need watch the ground turn red from the blood of our valued wildlife. We only need listen to the crying of an animal being consumed alive.
We only need listen to their screams of agony.
About the Author
Jim Slinsky, host of Outdoor Talk Network, has been an avid hunter and fisherman for over forty years. Taught by his father, Jim was shooting and fishing before he ever started school. Equally capable with a fly rod, baitcasting, spinning gear, bow, rifle, shotgun and handgun, Jim believes variety is the key to the total outdoor experience. Freshwater, saltwater, small game, big game, Jim enjoys it all and is in the field every chance he gets. As a current member of the Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association, Jim has begun to write about many of his experiences and the issues that sportsmen face in our ever-changing world. Jim is an active rod and gun builder, precision handloader, English setter dog breeder, multi-species fisherman, former college professor, active conservationist and staunch supporter of individual freedoms. His favorite modified quotation is, "I can't remember a day in the outdoors I didn't like." Every show is dedicated to his father, the late, great, Jim Slinsky Sr., "His hunting and fishing plans always included me." The show is Jim's full-time endeavor http://www.theoutdoorlodge.com/features/articles/outdoors/yellowstone_wolf_experiment.html (http://www.theoutdoorlodge.com/features/articles/outdoors/yellowstone_wolf_experiment.html)
Crying Wolf Again - The Federal Cover-Up
By Montana State Rep. Joe Balyeat
Published 5/18/02
"Truth is violated by falsehood, but it is outraged by silence"
(Henri Frederic Amiel)
Federal wildlife biologists have taken much criticism lately for their
sins of commission-falsifying lynx evidence where there were no lynx.
But even more disastrous than their sins of commission, are their sins
of omission. MT House FWP Chairman Dan Fuchs has obtained hard evidence
of the following:
1)The Feds have known since 1997 that elk calf ratios were being totally
decimated in areas of high wolf concentration.
2)When MT FWP personnel attempted to release this evidence to the
public, the Feds aggressively barred MT FWP from doing so.
Joe Balyeat
Represent Montana House District #32 Beginning in 1997, Carrie Schaefer
did a study of Yellowstone wolf/elk interaction entitled "Spatial and
Temporal Variation in Wintering Elk Abundance and Composition, and Wolf
Response." Amongst other things, her study revealed that areas of high
wolf concentration inside Yellowstone had calf ratios dropping
precipitously - 0 to 10 calves per 100, even while the ratio outside
high wolf concentration areas remained at 46 calves per 100! When MT FWP
biologist Tom Lemke and others made written request for permission to
release this data to the public; the Fed response to suppress it was
swift, aggressive, and sustained. On 2/18/99, Yellowstone Supervisory
Biologist Glenn Plumb wrote: "It is my position, after reviewing Ms.
Schaefer's investigation, that her raw data do not warrant full
distribution to the public."
On 3/18/99, in an interoffice Memo, Plumb again denied the request:
"Regarding your request for elk classification data generated through
Carrie Schaefer's ongoing research.we were remiss in presenting Ms.
Schaefer's.data in the Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report." And they
were able to hide this striking wolf predation in the annual reports
because they only gave averages for the entire northern herd - when the
0 calf ratios in high wolf areas were averaged with the 46 calf ratios
from elsewhere, the average was still up near the 30 calf ratio needed
to sustain herd viability.
Of course, the Feds rationalized their suppression by saying that
Schaefer's study was just raw data and still ongoing. Yet even after her
report was completed the Feds never publicized nor (to our knowledge)
ever gave permission to MT FWP to release the information. In fact, one
MT FWP biologist who is directly involved with decisions related to
Yellowstone elk has stated that the data was so well suppressed that he
hasn't even seen it. Rep. Fuchs only got a copy of Schaefer's study and
the related inter-agency letters after aggressively demanding copies of
all documents related to the incident.
Last winter when Fuchs, myself, and other officials did our own elk calf
survey we discovered the calf ratio had plummeted. The initial response
from amateur wolf advocates and some professional biologists was, "These
guys are hacks and don't know how to count". After the official elk
census came out and totally substantiated our claims, they changed their
tune. They said, "OK, they're right about the drop, but we can't prove
it's due to wolves. It could be drought or hard winters, etc."
Yet the Schaefer study strongly implicates wolves as the significant
factor in two different ways. First, geographically - during the course
of the same winter, she observed alarmingly low calf ratios in high wolf
areas even while calf ratios remained above average outside high wolf
areas. This mitigates against the notion that the low calf ratios are
caused by drought or hard winters.
Secondly, when coupled with current data for the entire Northern
Yellowstone elk herd; an alarming pattern is revealed. In
1997 and 98, the low calf ratio was confined to areas of high wolf
concentration - the Lamar Valley, etc. In this last year or so, as dense
wolf populations have reached critical mass across the entire northern
Yellowstone Range; we "surprisingly" see the area of low calf ratio also
expand to encompass the entire herd.
Let's cut to the chase (pardon the pun). Our ancestors realized long ago
that the wolf is a unique critter - a killing machine and a breeding
machine all rolled into one. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population
increases of 34% annually, even while being aggressively hunted. Data
from the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify
this same 34% annual increase. It doesn't take a CPA (or a professional
wildlife biologist) to figure out that this rate results in a 1000%
increase in population size every 8 years!
If the Feds continue to break promises, suppress evidence, and drag
their feet for 3-5 more years; our wildlife and livestock may need to be
placed on the Endangered Species List by then (never mind our pet dogs,
llamas, and small children). I repeat - we are not calling for
eradication of wolves. We are simply saying that NOW is the time for the
Feds to move immediately to de-list the wolf; so that MT, Wyoming, and
Idaho state Fish & Game Departments can manage wolves like any other
species. It's time for the Feds to make up for past sins (of commission
and omission) by turning over wolf decisions to more trustworthy
managers.
MT Representative Joe Balyeat represents HD 32 in the Gallatin Valley.
He is Vice-Chairman of the House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Committee and
also serves as a Director of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/crying_wolf_again.htm (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/crying_wolf_again.htm)
"Let's cut to the chase (pardon the pun). Our ancestors realized long ago
that the wolf is a unique critter - a killing machine and a breeding
machine all rolled into one. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population
increases of 34% annually, even while being aggressively hunted. Data
from the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify
this same 34% annual increase. It doesn't take a CPA (or a professional
wildlife biologist) to figure out that this rate results in a 1000%
increase in population size every 8 years!"
WDFW said WA grew by one wolf last year.
Maybe most of WA's wolves are gay?
Or maybe WA's wolves are on their migration route, you know like the Caribou, headed back to somewhere in Canada depending on their DNA tests.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 19, 2014, 07:17:29 AM
Question...Wolves have been up here in NE Washington since ~2008 with a somewhat rapid increase in the population. There are several packs here, but the Diamond Pack is one of the larger and best established packs up here. It's smack dab in the middle of some terrific elk/moose/deer habitat. We have not seen much change in Elk or deer populations. They seem to be doing well and actually increasing. Moose (this is still all speculation and anecdotal) seem to be decreasing, which is a trend that has been seen throughout the whole country. WDFW is doing a pretty substantial moose study up here and will hopefully be able to figure out exactly what's going on. They have been open about wolf predation being a factor. No secrets there.
How much damage have wolves done in Washington, compared to where Idaho and Montana were at this point in their wolf management plan. Using a time table. So from the first "official" documented wolf pack to 5 years existence, 10 years, 15 years, etc.
I am curious to hear if Washington is fairing better or worse than where Montana and Idaho were at this point. My guess would be worse, because there are more wolves than ever, which are rapidly moving in to Washington from the other western states.
And I am NOT looking for an argument. When I ask questions, I am being genuine and looking for intelligent answers. I prefise this, because I don't want anyone to be offended or miss-interpret my intentions. This is a highly sensitive topic, which people can be easily miss-understood. Thank you...
Post by: AspenBud on June 19, 2014, 09:27:03 AM
I don't care what most of the public think they want. That has nothing to do with game management. They have no idea of what management goals are or why the bios do what they do. Most aren't even aware there are bios in the field. With regards to game management, most of the public are ignorant idiots. And you and your ilk feed on that, and it's wrong. You show them pretty pictures of wolf pups while farmer Joe loses his living and we lose our ungulates.
You talk and talk about what good wolves are for the ecosystem and how we need them and that proper management was applied to allow them back in, and then you throw all of that out the window to support public opinion instead of wildlife management to manage the wolves. You have zero integrity. You're a shill for the anti-hunting crowd who wants to use wolves to end our sport and heritage.
You can run your mouth with your assumptions there but at the end of it I'm right and you know it. The Washington public doesn't give a hoot about your government/wolf conspiracies. They make every hunter in this state look crazy and they cause people to not listen when real issues of management need to be brought up. This is not Idaho and you better wrap your brain around that and soon.
If you and your anti government buddies can't understand that I don't know what I can ever say to make you see reason and in which case we really are screwed on the issue of wolf management. I might not agree with you on everything, but I'd stand by you for some wolf management. I do not, however, want to be associated with anymore conspiracies of yours as a sportsman of this state.
But good luck, just don't be surprised when you find out to your horror how right I am. And I am right.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 19, 2014, 10:11:11 AM
Very good point. I'm still baffled at how folks like Piano can't understand or make the connection that the wildlife are owned by all of the public and their desires on management are to be considered collectively...its perhaps more terrifying than some of the conspiracy stuff they spout!I don't care what most of the public think they want. That has nothing to do with game management. They have no idea of what management goals are or why the bios do what they do. Most aren't even aware there are bios in the field. With regards to game management, most of the public are ignorant idiots. And you and your ilk feed on that, and it's wrong. You show them pretty pictures of wolf pups while farmer Joe loses his living and we lose our ungulates.
You talk and talk about what good wolves are for the ecosystem and how we need them and that proper management was applied to allow them back in, and then you throw all of that out the window to support public opinion instead of wildlife management to manage the wolves. You have zero integrity. You're a shill for the anti-hunting crowd who wants to use wolves to end our sport and heritage.
You can run your mouth with your assumptions there but at the end of it I'm right and you know it. The Washington public doesn't give a hoot about your government/wolf conspiracies. They make every hunter in this state look crazy and they cause people to not listen when real issues of management need to be brought up. This is not Idaho and you better wrap your brain around that and soon.
And even in Idaho we really didn't tolerate the conspiracy crowd like that laughingstock Rockholm who was frequently embarrased at IDFG commission meetings until the point that he finally tucked his tail between his legs and scampered away. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2014, 01:46:47 PM
Very good point. I'm still baffled at how folks like Piano can't understand or make the connection that the wildlife are owned by all of the public and their desires on management are to be considered collectively...its perhaps more terrifying than some of the conspiracy stuff they spout!I don't care what most of the public think they want. That has nothing to do with game management. They have no idea of what management goals are or why the bios do what they do. Most aren't even aware there are bios in the field. With regards to game management, most of the public are ignorant idiots. And you and your ilk feed on that, and it's wrong. You show them pretty pictures of wolf pups while farmer Joe loses his living and we lose our ungulates.
You talk and talk about what good wolves are for the ecosystem and how we need them and that proper management was applied to allow them back in, and then you throw all of that out the window to support public opinion instead of wildlife management to manage the wolves. You have zero integrity. You're a shill for the anti-hunting crowd who wants to use wolves to end our sport and heritage.
You can run your mouth with your assumptions there but at the end of it I'm right and you know it. The Washington public doesn't give a hoot about your government/wolf conspiracies. They make every hunter in this state look crazy and they cause people to not listen when real issues of management need to be brought up. This is not Idaho and you better wrap your brain around that and soon.
And even in Idaho we really didn't tolerate the conspiracy crowd like that laughingstock Rockholm who was frequently embarrased at IDFG commission meetings until the point that he finally tucked his tail between his legs and scampered away. :chuckle: :chuckle:
You two never fail to amaze me with your visions, I bet WDFW and CNW are so proud of you. You can keep packing water for WDFW etc., but you as well as everyone that has seen the destruction wolves leave behind, know in the end WA and OR will look far worse than ID, MT or Wyoming. There are just too many stupid people employed by WDFW and ODFG and then throw in the money grubbing environmentalists and you have just another corrupt agency, that do nothing but stink it up for those who have good intentions.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 19, 2014, 08:37:26 PM
You seem to be backpedaling from not that long ago when you preached how all was lost in those states when it came to elk hunting...since that little lie never materialized now were supposed to believe that the end is near for Washington instead? You keep predicting the end of the world and somehow you keep getting it wrong. :dunno: Perhaps you should change your story :tup:
You two never fail to amaze me with your visions, I bet WDFW and CNW are so proud of you. You can keep packing water for WDFW etc., but you as well as everyone that has seen the destruction wolves leave behind, know in the end WA and OR will look far worse than ID, MT or Wyoming. There are just too many stupid people employed by WDFW and ODFG and then throw in the money grubbing environmentalists and you have just another corrupt agency, that do nothing but stink it up for those who have good intentions.
Now for your comment about too many stupid people employed by WDFW...I don't think you are in any position to discuss the intelligence of the WDFW personnel. You have yet to make even one correct statement or prediction from what I can tell about wildlife and wolves...further, you continue to alienate wdfw staff and then wonder why they don't take you seriously with your wolf reports...maybe you ought to think about that and see how smart you feel. :chuckle:
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 19, 2014, 09:38:25 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2014, 10:05:05 PM
You seem to be backpedaling from not that long ago when you preached how all was lost in those states when it came to elk hunting...since that little lie never materialized now were supposed to believe that the end is near for Washington instead? You keep predicting the end of the world and somehow you keep getting it wrong. :dunno: Perhaps you should change your story :tup:
You two never fail to amaze me with your visions, I bet WDFW and CNW are so proud of you. You can keep packing water for WDFW etc., but you as well as everyone that has seen the destruction wolves leave behind, know in the end WA and OR will look far worse than ID, MT or Wyoming. There are just too many stupid people employed by WDFW and ODFG and then throw in the money grubbing environmentalists and you have just another corrupt agency, that do nothing but stink it up for those who have good intentions.
Now for your comment about too many stupid people employed by WDFW...I don't think you are in any position to discuss the intelligence of the WDFW personnel. You have yet to make even one correct statement or prediction from what I can tell about wildlife and wolves...further, you continue to alienate wdfw staff and then wonder why they don't take you seriously with your wolf reports...maybe you ought to think about that and see how smart you feel. :chuckle:
First off I wouldn't give WDFW the time of day, I have seen them in action where I live? As far as WDFW employees being stupid, I have met a few who talk the same wolf language as you do. Maybe they aren't stupid, perhaps they just don't know anything about wolves, and should have a job making coffee, you know something they can't screw up.
I haven't changed my mind on wolves, I have seen what they have done and know what the end results are where they are left uncontrolled, even you can figure that out, but it doesn't fit the federal and state agenda does it? So they have the pro-wolf crowd on hunting sites etc. trying to turn those who are undecided. You can BS the fans but not the players. SS
Post by: mountainman on June 19, 2014, 11:16:26 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 19, 2014, 11:29:30 PM
As far as WDFW employees being stupid, I have met a few who talk the same wolf language as you do. Maybe they aren't stupid, perhaps they just don't know anything about wolves, and should have a job making coffee, you know something they can't screw up.Nah...I think we leave the wdfw folks to manage the wildlife...let you handle the coffee making and internet name calling :tup:
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 20, 2014, 02:31:59 AM
Name calling is grounds for being banned from participating on the Hunt Wa forum. :bdid:
Post by: jackelope on June 20, 2014, 01:05:19 PM
Well said Wolfbait..again, some are so ready to believe what they are told or read, rather than listen to any first hand, in the field reports...also throw common sense reasoning out the door.,,never gonna change their minds. They are so entrenched with being" right", they will defend till blue in the face, their" facts" as being right,.. not. Worth the breath to try to change their mind and perspective buddy!
You are correct.
People are so entrenched in their ideas being right that they will defend their ideas(which lliterally have no support or backing) till they are blue in the face.
I see a pattern.
:yike:
Post by: jackelope on June 20, 2014, 01:14:13 PM
I believe under the forum rules....
Name calling is grounds for being banned from participating on the Hunt Wa forum. :bdid:
Did I miss something?
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 01:26:12 PM
No...I was referencing wolfbaits calling wdfw staff stupid...not that he was calling any member here a name...no broken rules that I see.I believe under the forum rules....
Name calling is grounds for being banned from participating on the Hunt Wa forum. :bdid:
Did I miss something?
Post by: timberfaller on June 20, 2014, 09:56:37 PM
I've also watched them on the TV at times when "meetings" are televised in Olympia.
I had a gut buster last year when two old guys cornered the Director and the Asst. over land acquisition!!
Those two old timers put those two to shame!! They even gave them a "simple" solution to their "problem" and it went right over their heads faster then you could say BOO! :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 10:05:49 PM
I've had to sit and listen to some of THAT "staff" and stupid is a "nice" term for what I've had to endure.I'm sure the feelings are mutual.
I've also watched them on the TV at times when "meetings" are televised in Olympia.
I had a gut buster last year when two old guys cornered the Director and the Asst. over land acquisition!!
Those two old timers put those two to shame!! They even gave them a "simple" solution to their "problem" and it went right over their heads faster then you could say BOO! :chuckle:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: timberfaller on June 20, 2014, 10:09:58 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 20, 2014, 10:19:01 PM
Wow! How old are you?? :rolleyes:old enough to know two old timers did not shame the director (;
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: mountainman on June 20, 2014, 10:23:37 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 21, 2014, 12:05:38 PM
Wow! How old are you?? :rolleyes:old enough to know two old timers did not shame the director (;
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I don't think anyone could shame the director, he was hired to be a yes man for the USFWS and environmental groups, the pay is $$$$$$$$$$$$.
What is a soul worth these days?
Post by: wolfbait on June 21, 2014, 10:03:14 PM
What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery
Second only to Alaska in total wilderness acres, Idaho’s wilderness areas provided a nucleus population of elk and deer 40 years ago when IDFG biologists had over- harvested elk everywhere else except in the Panhandle. Director Groen’s announcement that surplus wilderness wolves will be used to populate surrounding regions reflects F&G’s allegiance to the real FWS wolf recovery agenda.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 22, 2014, 01:41:30 PM
Those interested in what the future looks like for WA should read the info below. Compare WDFW and their wolf management so far with what you read in the link below.
What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery
Second only to Alaska in total wilderness acres, Idaho’s wilderness areas provided a nucleus population of elk and deer 40 years ago when IDFG biologists had over- harvested elk everywhere else except in the Panhandle. Director Groen’s announcement that surplus wilderness wolves will be used to populate surrounding regions reflects F&G’s allegiance to the real FWS wolf recovery agenda.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Intresting article- The only issue I have is that it is 6-7 year old data. So the real questions are...
What was the status of the deer, elk, moose, cattle, and wolf populations in 2008 when this was happening? (Baseline)
What is the status of the deer, elk, moose, cattle, and wolf populations in 2014? (Baseline)
Did this specific area improve, decline, stay the same? (End Result)
Post by: wolfbait on June 22, 2014, 08:16:59 PM
Those interested in what the future looks like for WA should read the info below. Compare WDFW and their wolf management so far with what you read in the link below.
What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery
Second only to Alaska in total wilderness acres, Idaho’s wilderness areas provided a nucleus population of elk and deer 40 years ago when IDFG biologists had over- harvested elk everywhere else except in the Panhandle. Director Groen’s announcement that surplus wilderness wolves will be used to populate surrounding regions reflects F&G’s allegiance to the real FWS wolf recovery agenda.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Intresting article- The only issue I have is that it is 6-7 year old data. So the real questions are...
What was the status of the deer, elk, moose, cattle, and wolf populations in 2008 when this was happening? (Baseline)
What is the status of the deer, elk, moose, cattle, and wolf populations in 2014? (Baseline)
Did this specific area improve, decline, stay the same? (End Result)
You must be Idahohunter's brother,
The link above shows some of the fraud and corruption that Idaho etc. went through, some of the same BS WA is now going through with WDFW's hands on the throttle. Example:
Wolf Numbers Underestimated
There are so many variables involved in attempting to estimate the total number of wolves in a state that any such estimate is prone to large errors even with the best information available. But when the existence of every wolf that has not been part of a “collared” pack is ignored, any such estimate is suspect.
For example, local residents reported several wolf packs in Boise County yet FWS had documented only two. When the Team finally documented the existence of three more packs there were 2-1/2 times as many wolf packs as had been recorded and a similar increase in the number of breeding pairs – indicated both by pups and by yearlings that were born in the prior year and survived.
Although FWS goes back and adjusts the number of breeding pairs for the prior year when this evidence is documented, this system always results in initially underestimating both total wolves and breeding pairs. Recovery goals in all three states were met at least 2-3 years before then current FWS estimates said they were, yet the actual number of breeding pairs was not admitted and recorded until after the fact.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 22, 2014, 08:22:29 PM
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 22, 2014, 09:47:04 PM
I have no relation to Idaho Hunter. I only have 1 sister. You must be confusing me with someone else in the forum.Don't waste your time reading most of anything he posts...wolfbait can't stand logic, data, and reason when it comes to wolf management and he never provides credible information...usually just more rhetoric and unfounded gossip. He also likes to make up stuff about me or anyone else who provides logical thought on wolves...he has this fascination that anyone who doesn't believe his crazy talk is out to get him and is in on some grand conspiracy and works for WDFW/USFWS...its quite sad...but occasionally very entertaining :chuckle:
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
Post by: wolfbait on June 22, 2014, 10:18:26 PM
I have no relation to Idaho Hunter. I only have 1 sister. You must be confusing me with someone else in the forum.Don't waste your time reading most of anything he posts...wolfbait can't stand logic, data, and reason when it comes to wolf management and he never provides credible information...usually just more rhetoric and unfounded gossip. He also likes to make up stuff about me or anyone else who provides logical thought on wolves...he has this fascination that anyone who doesn't believe his crazy talk is out to get him and is in on some grand conspiracy and works for WDFW/USFWS...its quite sad...but occasionally very entertaining :chuckle:
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
*censored*
(please refrain from these types of comments)
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 22, 2014, 10:24:32 PM
I have no relation to Idaho Hunter. I only have 1 sister. You must be confusing me with someone else in the forum.Don't waste your time reading most of anything he posts...wolfbait can't stand logic, data, and reason when it comes to wolf management and he never provides credible information...usually just more rhetoric and unfounded gossip. He also likes to make up stuff about me or anyone else who provides logical thought on wolves...he has this fascination that anyone who doesn't believe his crazy talk is out to get him and is in on some grand conspiracy and works for WDFW/USFWS...its quite sad...but occasionally very entertaining :chuckle:
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
Ya..I just try and stay out of the arguing. The focus should be on what hunters can do, to help work with the WSDFW. I am not pro-wolf. But since wolves are here to stay; I would like to see them managed appropriately, when the wolf plan objectives are met. I will make my judgements on whether or not the WSDFW failed or a great job, when that time comes. Kinda hard to bash them, when they are in the middle of re-introducing them still.
Some people are gonna bash them, no matter how well they handle it. I'm just saying; give them a chance to pass or fail, before you bash the heck out of them.
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 22, 2014, 10:38:58 PM
I have no relation to Idaho Hunter. I only have 1 sister. You must be confusing me with someone else in the forum.Don't waste your time reading most of anything he posts...wolfbait can't stand logic, data, and reason when it comes to wolf management and he never provides credible information...usually just more rhetoric and unfounded gossip. He also likes to make up stuff about me or anyone else who provides logical thought on wolves...he has this fascination that anyone who doesn't believe his crazy talk is out to get him and is in on some grand conspiracy and works for WDFW/USFWS...its quite sad...but occasionally very entertaining :chuckle:
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
*censored*
(please refrain from these types of comments)
I will let the moderators deal with you. Your trying to bait us into an argument, by insinuating Idaho Hunter lacks intelligence (insulting him). Then your insulting me, by making remarks that I am Idaho Hunters brother, and my sister is named Bart. Your trying to make it personal. I can handle my own, but I enjoy Hunt Wa and don't want to risk getting banned. I beleive under the forum rules; insulting fellow Hunt Wa members is a direct violation of forum rules. It is grounds to be banned. I feel like you come on here looking for an argument, and want to push the forum rules limits.
Nothing wrong with being anti-wolf and voicing your opinion, but attacking other Hunt Wa members personally is not the proper way to make your points.
Again....have a good night.
Post by: Romulus1297 on June 22, 2014, 10:46:16 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2014, 05:18:16 AM
I have no relation to Idaho Hunter. I only have 1 sister. You must be confusing me with someone else in the forum.Don't waste your time reading most of anything he posts...wolfbait can't stand logic, data, and reason when it comes to wolf management and he never provides credible information...usually just more rhetoric and unfounded gossip. He also likes to make up stuff about me or anyone else who provides logical thought on wolves...he has this fascination that anyone who doesn't believe his crazy talk is out to get him and is in on some grand conspiracy and works for WDFW/USFWS...its quite sad...but occasionally very entertaining :chuckle:
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
Ya..I just try and stay out of the arguing. The focus should be on what hunters can do, to help work with the WSDFW. I am not pro-wolf. But since wolves are here to stay; I would like to see them managed appropriately, when the wolf plan objectives are met. I will make my judgements on whether or not the WSDFW failed or a great job, when that time comes. Kinda hard to bash them, when they are in the middle of re-introducing them still.
Some people are gonna bash them, no matter how well they handle it. I'm just saying; give them a chance to pass or fail, before you bash the heck out of them.
"Kinda hard to bash them, when they are in the middle of re-introducing them still."
Really GH, thats one of our main complaints, WDFW releasing wolves and then calling WA wolves, migrating wolves. That and they haven't managed wolves yet, they have mainly just lied to the rural folks who have to put up with the released wolves.
So the real questions are...
What was the status of the deer, elk, moose, cattle, and wolf populations in 2008 when this was happening?
What is the status of the deer, elk, moose, cattle, and wolf populations in 2013?
Did this specific area improve, decline, stay the same at all? What was the article about again, I seemed to have forgotten the baseline.
What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/George%20Dovel/The_Outdoorsman%2026%20January%202008%20full%20report.pdf)
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2014, 05:29:14 AM
I have no relation to Idaho Hunter. I only have 1 sister. You must be confusing me with someone else in the forum.Don't waste your time reading most of anything he posts...wolfbait can't stand logic, data, and reason when it comes to wolf management and he never provides credible information...usually just more rhetoric and unfounded gossip. He also likes to make up stuff about me or anyone else who provides logical thought on wolves...he has this fascination that anyone who doesn't believe his crazy talk is out to get him and is in on some grand conspiracy and works for WDFW/USFWS...its quite sad...but occasionally very entertaining :chuckle:
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
*censored*
(please refrain from these types of comments)
I will let the moderators deal with you. Your trying to bait us into an argument, by insinuating Idaho Hunter lacks intelligence (insulting him). Then your insulting me, by making remarks that I am Idaho Hunters brother, and my sister is named Bart. Your trying to make it personal. I can handle my own, but I enjoy Hunt Wa and don't want to risk getting banned. I beleive under the forum rules; insulting fellow Hunt Wa members is a direct violation of forum rules. It is grounds to be banned. I feel like you come on here looking for an argument, and want to push the forum rules limits.
Nothing wrong with being anti-wolf and voicing your opinion, but attacking other Hunt Wa members personally is not the proper way to make your points.
Again....have a good night.
Really? :chuckle: :chuckle: Yep I think jack should lope over here and inspect your complaints. Are you Idahohunters lawyer? I asked you a few questions, how does asking questions fit into insulting/arguing? Isn't that how people learn? You do know some people ask questions to learn :chuckle:, and others just keep peeing on the electric fence. :hello: And…….have a good day.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 23, 2014, 05:32:08 AM
Post by: mountainman on June 23, 2014, 08:29:55 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2014, 08:42:25 AM
I believe under the forum rules....
Name calling is grounds for being banned from participating on the Hunt Wa forum. :bdid:
If you are pro-wolf it's ok to call another member names: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154420.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154420.0.html)
If you are pro-wolf management, then it is definitely not ok. I think it has something to do with management. :chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2014, 09:02:15 AM
Hey Wolf, was in the valley yesterday..saw with my own eyes, rather the reading a report, tracks in the cub creek/rendevous/fawn creek area..hearts pass area, Thompson ridge, and frost road area. And 1 deer that wasn't in town...Saw quite a few in city limit..
Thompson ridge had collared wolves on it in 2006, just a few years before the lie of first wolf pack in 70 years.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 09:32:19 AM
I believe under the forum rules....
Name calling is grounds for being banned from participating on the Hunt Wa forum. :bdid:
If you are pro-wolf it's ok to call another member names: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154420.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154420.0.html)
If you are pro-wolf management, then it is definitely not ok. I think it has something to do with management. :chuckle:
Wolves are a very polarizing issue and many of us get drawn into posting less than desirable comments. The conversation will benefit if we (all) refrain from insults and name calling. I would like to ask everyone to please avoid the insults and name calling, it does nothing but degrade the conversation.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 23, 2014, 09:37:53 AM
Easy there Todd... or Spurs, Longshot... whatever your name is.I have no relation to Idaho Hunter. I only have 1 sister. You must be confusing me with someone else in the forum.Don't waste your time reading most of anything he posts...wolfbait can't stand logic, data, and reason when it comes to wolf management and he never provides credible information...usually just more rhetoric and unfounded gossip. He also likes to make up stuff about me or anyone else who provides logical thought on wolves...he has this fascination that anyone who doesn't believe his crazy talk is out to get him and is in on some grand conspiracy and works for WDFW/USFWS...its quite sad...but occasionally very entertaining :chuckle:
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
*censored*
(please refrain from these types of comments)
You're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for an argument.
Bart George
Post by: Bob33 on June 23, 2014, 09:49:00 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 23, 2014, 10:05:44 AM
Easy there Todd... or Spurs, Longshot... whatever your name is.I have no relation to Idaho Hunter. I only have 1 sister. You must be confusing me with someone else in the forum.Don't waste your time reading most of anything he posts...wolfbait can't stand logic, data, and reason when it comes to wolf management and he never provides credible information...usually just more rhetoric and unfounded gossip. He also likes to make up stuff about me or anyone else who provides logical thought on wolves...he has this fascination that anyone who doesn't believe his crazy talk is out to get him and is in on some grand conspiracy and works for WDFW/USFWS...its quite sad...but occasionally very entertaining :chuckle:
I read a little of what you posted. I was looking more for the bottom line. That's a little lengthy for me. Have a good night.
*censored*
(please refrain from these types of comments)
You're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for an argument.
Bart George
Is that you WC? Are you the same B. George that works for WDFW?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 23, 2014, 10:20:04 AM
What's your last name Todd? It would be nice to break the anonymity.
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 10:25:28 AM
From where I sit the more bitter, angry, and personal a post is the less credibility it has. A few have lost credibility with me to the point that they’re essentially ignored, which is unfortunate because they may in fact have useful information.
You are right Bob, I think a lot of good comments and information is overlooked due to the attitudes involved in the conversation. We are humans, we all make mistakes, many of us need to clean it up a bit rather than allow the conversations to become more polarizing due to the degrading comments made toward each other.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 23, 2014, 10:30:33 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 10:39:40 AM
You mean like the ones Wolfbait is trying to make towards me right now Dale??? That guy needs reeled in. Where are the mods on this?
Yes, that is one example. But, he is not the only person guilty. I was trying to get this settled down without issuing any bans.
Post by: rim_runner on June 23, 2014, 12:26:30 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 23, 2014, 12:47:45 PM
This is an emotional issue and it’s also a political issue so it’s small wonder that it can lead to some disagreement. As hunters one thing we should keep in mind is that although hunters have traditionally had a strong voice in wildlife management this is changing. The fish and wildlife has to answer to all the citizens of this state. The urban dweller that has never set foot in the woods is as entitled to an opinion as the avid sportsman who spends time in the woods on a regular basis. Now the value of those opinions can vary a lot but we all have the right to an opinion and the right to express that opinion. The problem we have been seeing more and more is that while both hunters and anti-hunters are battling over these issues the majority of the population is non-hunting. They aren’t necessarily against hunting they just aren’t necessarily for hunting. The anti-hunters have caught on to this and never miss an opportunity to make use of it. When they can’t pressure the fish and wildlife or legislature to do something they work thru the courts or even get measures on the ballot like they did with trapping and hound hunting. They don’t bother to try to convince hunters that these measures are a good thing. They work on the non-hunters who haven’t educated themselves enough on wildlife issues to know that they are being fed a bunch of propaganda. Slick well produced misleading television ads were their main tool in the fight to ban trapping and hound hunting. Pro-hunting groups don’t have the funding to counter these ads and if we did we would rather put that money into habitat enhancement than have to spend it to counter lies. This is why creditability is so important to us and why anti-hunters try so hard to ruin our creditability. With that in mind making a lot of statements about misconduct by state and federal departments without being able to provide proof of misconduct can be damaging to our creditability which plays right in the hands of the anti-hunters.Very well said :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on June 23, 2014, 12:54:51 PM
Crying Wolf Again - The Federal Cover-Up
By Montana State Rep. Joe Balyeat
Published 5/18/02
"Truth is violated by falsehood, but it is outraged by silence"
(Henri Frederic Amiel)
Federal wildlife biologists have taken much criticism lately for their
sins of commission-falsifying lynx evidence where there were no lynx.
But even more disastrous than their sins of commission, are their sins
of omission. MT House FWP Chairman Dan Fuchs has obtained hard evidence
of the following:
1)The Feds have known since 1997 that elk calf ratios were being totally
decimated in areas of high wolf concentration.
2)When MT FWP personnel attempted to release this evidence to the
public, the Feds aggressively barred MT FWP from doing so.
Joe Balyeat
Represent Montana House District #32 Beginning in 1997, Carrie Schaefer
did a study of Yellowstone wolf/elk interaction entitled "Spatial and
Temporal Variation in Wintering Elk Abundance and Composition, and Wolf
Response." Amongst other things, her study revealed that areas of high
wolf concentration inside Yellowstone had calf ratios dropping
precipitously - 0 to 10 calves per 100, even while the ratio outside
high wolf concentration areas remained at 46 calves per 100! When MT FWP
biologist Tom Lemke and others made written request for permission to
release this data to the public; the Fed response to suppress it was
swift, aggressive, and sustained. On 2/18/99, Yellowstone Supervisory
Biologist Glenn Plumb wrote: "It is my position, after reviewing Ms.
Schaefer's investigation, that her raw data do not warrant full
distribution to the public."
On 3/18/99, in an interoffice Memo, Plumb again denied the request:
"Regarding your request for elk classification data generated through
Carrie Schaefer's ongoing research.we were remiss in presenting Ms.
Schaefer's.data in the Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report." And they
were able to hide this striking wolf predation in the annual reports
because they only gave averages for the entire northern herd - when the
0 calf ratios in high wolf areas were averaged with the 46 calf ratios
from elsewhere, the average was still up near the 30 calf ratio needed
to sustain herd viability.
Of course, the Feds rationalized their suppression by saying that
Schaefer's study was just raw data and still ongoing. Yet even after her
report was completed the Feds never publicized nor (to our knowledge)
ever gave permission to MT FWP to release the information. In fact, one
MT FWP biologist who is directly involved with decisions related to
Yellowstone elk has stated that the data was so well suppressed that he
hasn't even seen it. Rep. Fuchs only got a copy of Schaefer's study and
the related inter-agency letters after aggressively demanding copies of
all documents related to the incident.
Last winter when Fuchs, myself, and other officials did our own elk calf
survey we discovered the calf ratio had plummeted. The initial response
from amateur wolf advocates and some professional biologists was, "These
guys are hacks and don't know how to count". After the official elk
census came out and totally substantiated our claims, they changed their
tune. They said, "OK, they're right about the drop, but we can't prove
it's due to wolves. It could be drought or hard winters, etc."
Yet the Schaefer study strongly implicates wolves as the significant
factor in two different ways. First, geographically - during the course
of the same winter, she observed alarmingly low calf ratios in high wolf
areas even while calf ratios remained above average outside high wolf
areas. This mitigates against the notion that the low calf ratios are
caused by drought or hard winters.
Secondly, when coupled with current data for the entire Northern
Yellowstone elk herd; an alarming pattern is revealed. In
1997 and 98, the low calf ratio was confined to areas of high wolf
concentration - the Lamar Valley, etc. In this last year or so, as dense
wolf populations have reached critical mass across the entire northern
Yellowstone Range; we "surprisingly" see the area of low calf ratio also
expand to encompass the entire herd.
Let's cut to the chase (pardon the pun). Our ancestors realized long ago
that the wolf is a unique critter - a killing machine and a breeding
machine all rolled into one. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population
increases of 34% annually, even while being aggressively hunted. Data
from the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify
this same 34% annual increase. It doesn't take a CPA (or a professional
wildlife biologist) to figure out that this rate results in a 1000%
increase in population size every 8 years!
If the Feds continue to break promises, suppress evidence, and drag
their feet for 3-5 more years; our wildlife and livestock may need to be
placed on the Endangered Species List by then (never mind our pet dogs,
llamas, and small children). I repeat - we are not calling for
eradication of wolves. We are simply saying that NOW is the time for the
Feds to move immediately to de-list the wolf; so that MT, Wyoming, and
Idaho state Fish & Game Departments can manage wolves like any other
species. It's time for the Feds to make up for past sins (of commission
and omission) by turning over wolf decisions to more trustworthy
managers.
MT Representative Joe Balyeat represents HD 32 in the Gallatin Valley.
He is Vice-Chairman of the House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Committee and
also serves as a Director of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/crying_wolf_again.htm (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/crying_wolf_again.htm)
"Let's cut to the chase (pardon the pun). Our ancestors realized long ago
that the wolf is a unique critter - a killing machine and a breeding
machine all rolled into one. Alaskan studies reveal wolf population
increases of 34% annually, even while being aggressively hunted. Data
from the first few years of our Tri-state wolf experiment also verify
this same 34% annual increase. It doesn't take a CPA (or a professional
wildlife biologist) to figure out that this rate results in a 1000%
increase in population size every 8 years!"
WDFW said WA grew by one wolf last year.
Maybe most of WA's wolves are gay?
Or maybe WA's wolves are on their migration route, you know like the Caribou, headed back to somewhere in Canada depending on their DNA tests.