Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2014, 09:30:44 PM
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/ (http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/)
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:50:23 PM
The “Naturally Migrating” GI WolvesGee...this "Todd" and "wolfbait" seem to have similar dillusions. I find it funny that you obviously linked an article that you wrote to try and play it off as more credible. Unfortunately your conspiracy theories are just too stupid to not recognize...regardless of what name you want to use. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/ (http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2014, 06:41:37 AM
simply amazing.The “Naturally Migrating” GI WolvesGee...this "Todd" and "wolfbait" seem to have similar dillusions. I find it funny that you obviously linked an article that you wrote to try and play it off as more credible. Unfortunately your conspiracy theories are just too stupid to not recognize...regardless of what name you want to use. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/ (http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/)
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 11:37:49 AM
simply amazing.The “Naturally Migrating” GI WolvesGee...this "Todd" and "wolfbait" seem to have similar dillusions. I find it funny that you obviously linked an article that you wrote to try and play it off as more credible. Unfortunately your conspiracy theories are just too stupid to not recognize...regardless of what name you want to use. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/ (http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/)
Great come-back guys, I bet you spent allot of time discussing the best answer for the information posted.
The fact that the USFWS and WDFW can't even get their stories straight as to where the Lookout pack came from shows ultimate stupidity, and then throw in Fitkin's over zealous response of BS, which is laughable says quite a bit about both agencies. I guess when they only have to BS their fans it doesn't really matter how many times they lie. If you like your doctor, you can keep him/her.
It is getting harder for the pro-wolf crowd to defend a corrupt agency where the head of the department claims to know nothing about what is going on below him. Maybe he is just too busy for the dirty details? Or is he just another puppet under the USFWS, perhaps he is lying to the public of his own accord, after all by the time everything really starts heading south he will be retired. Welcome to the Fraud and Corruption of the USFWS Wolf Introduction.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2014, 12:43:20 PM
Again, you have nothing to base your claims on. We didn't have to get too creative and "discuss our arguments"... our argument is based on factual, defendable, evidence. Yours is based on a few "friend of a friend eyewitness accounts".
Fitkin is not the one in the valley that is over zealous.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 12:52:47 PM
Why wolfy wants to drum up irrelevant and unsupportable claims about wolves is confusing. There are plenty of real issues to debate and discuss...these conspiracy theories are unnecessary and frankly damaging to the reputation of hunters. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2014, 01:01:29 PM
We have our work cut out for us to get them counted and move towards management. Picking fights with the bureaucrats over how they got here really is irrelevant.
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 03:53:05 PM
You are the only one with a different story. The wolves in the Methow came here from Canada, the wolves in NE came over from Glacier then up from central ID. There is evidence (real evidence) of those dispersals.
Again, you have nothing to base your claims on. We didn't have to get too creative and "discuss our arguments"... our argument is based on factual, defendable, evidence. Yours is based on a few "friend of a friend eyewitness accounts".
Fitkin is not the one in the valley that is over zealous.
"The wolves in the Methow came here from Canada, the wolves in NE came over from Glacier then up from central ID."
Theres a small problem with your factual, defendable evidence WC, the wolves in the NE didn't exist on paper in 2008. I'm sure they were planted before 2008, but I don't think it's wise on your part to let that bit of info out of the bag.
Will WDFW switch from migrating wolves to dispersals, now, did you get permission?
Rural folks all over WA have caught WDFW releasing wolves, I don't think WDFW really care what they have been caught at, they know they can lie, or threaten people to get out of any trouble. People that have to deal with wolves shoved on them don't count, it's the fans that control the vote that count, at the same time it sure isn't going to look too shiny when it comes out how WA really got most of it's wolves. And it is going too come out. :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 04:08:44 PM
There are many reasonable things to debate regarding wolf management: How and when will they be de-listed? How many bp should washington have? What is the best strategy for minimizing their impacts to ungulates? Will we get to hunt wolves in WA? How many wolves should we manage for?
Why wolfy wants to drum up irrelevant and unsupportable claims about wolves is confusing. There are plenty of real issues to debate and discuss...these conspiracy theories are unnecessary and frankly damaging to the reputation of hunters. :twocents:
Didn't WDFW's pro-wolf working group already set the amount of wolves WA should have, not that it really means anything as WDFW refuse to confirm wolves unless they are forced to do so. Delisting will be just another number jerked out of the sky by WDFW, they alone will decide when to confirm the last BP. Minimizing their impacts? Hell WDFW don't even manage the predators that aren't "endangered", we have already been through that pile. First WDFW would need to quit lying, I don't see any evidence of that in the near future, they will just keep jerking numbers out of the sky and go from there for their wolf count. Will we hunt wolves in WA? Not if WDFW and their friends have their say, maybe after several lawsuits by friends of WDFW and the USFWS. How many wolves should we manage? I don't think there has ever been a public WE from the start of wolves, it has always been a USFWS and state agency We.
Like now, and as time goes one and more evidence is exposed of wolf releases by the USFWS and WDFW, you and the rest of the pro-wolf crowd will want to talk about some other part of the wolf program>>>>>Wolves make the aspen grow, balance the ecosystem, and beavers flourish.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 04:15:36 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 04:16:43 PM
Good point.
We have our work cut out for us to get them counted and move towards management. Picking fights with the bureaucrats over how they got here really is irrelevant.
We have already seen how the USFWS and state game agencies count and manage wolves, look at the Yellowstone and Lolo elk herds as an example. Don't you think part of management would be confirming wolf packs, lying about wolf predation on livestock has not helped the "movement towards management".
Who's picking a fight, or is telling the truth against the rules?
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 04:26:53 PM
Settle down wolfy...I just tossed out a half-dozen topics that if you were to discuss there might be something useful to consider...lately its just been absurd conspiracy thats not true and you know it. You lie more than any government agency...by a long-shot. I think we should set a timeline when all of your evidence will be reported and everyone will know wolves were planted...otherwise you have to move on to a new conspiracy :chuckle: :chuckle:
That's the cool thing about this evidence, time really doesn't matter anymore. By the time WDFW are finally forced to delist WA will be mostly wolf country.
We watch your falling down and now the name calling starts, are you going to stick with that one or jump around again? :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 04:39:37 PM
Wolfy, It's OK you don't have any evidence. Just admit it and move on to something useful.Settle down wolfy...I just tossed out a half-dozen topics that if you were to discuss there might be something useful to consider...lately its just been absurd conspiracy thats not true and you know it. You lie more than any government agency...by a long-shot. I think we should set a timeline when all of your evidence will be reported and everyone will know wolves were planted...otherwise you have to move on to a new conspiracy :chuckle: :chuckle:
That's the cool thing about this evidence, time really doesn't matter anymore. By the time WDFW are finally forced to delist WA will be mostly wolf country.
We watch your falling down and now the name calling starts, are you going to stick with that one or jump around again? :chuckle:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2014, 04:45:03 PM
Tell me more about this conspiracy in NE Washington. I'm eager to hear what you can come up with, as I've had my finger on the pulse of wolf activity up this way for quite a while.You are the only one with a different story. The wolves in the Methow came here from Canada, the wolves in NE came over from Glacier then up from central ID. There is evidence (real evidence) of those dispersals.
Again, you have nothing to base your claims on. We didn't have to get too creative and "discuss our arguments"... our argument is based on factual, defendable, evidence. Yours is based on a few "friend of a friend eyewitness accounts".
Fitkin is not the one in the valley that is over zealous.
"The wolves in the Methow came here from Canada, the wolves in NE came over from Glacier then up from central ID."
Theres a small problem with your factual, defendable evidence WC, the wolves in the NE didn't exist on paper in 2008. I'm sure they were planted before 2008, but I don't think it's wise on your part to let that bit of info out of the bag.
Will WDFW switch from migrating wolves to dispersals, now, did you get permission?
Rural folks all over WA have caught WDFW releasing wolves, I don't think WDFW really care what they have been caught at, they know they can lie, or threaten people to get out of any trouble. People that have to deal with wolves shoved on them don't count, it's the fans that control the vote that count, at the same time it sure isn't going to look too shiny when it comes out how WA really got most of it's wolves. And it is going too come out. :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 04:47:05 PM
Wolfy, It's OK you don't have any evidence. Just admit it and move on to something useful.Settle down wolfy...I just tossed out a half-dozen topics that if you were to discuss there might be something useful to consider...lately its just been absurd conspiracy thats not true and you know it. You lie more than any government agency...by a long-shot. I think we should set a timeline when all of your evidence will be reported and everyone will know wolves were planted...otherwise you have to move on to a new conspiracy :chuckle: :chuckle:
That's the cool thing about this evidence, time really doesn't matter anymore. By the time WDFW are finally forced to delist WA will be mostly wolf country.
We watch your falling down and now the name calling starts, are you going to stick with that one or jump around again? :chuckle:
If you and WC think we don't have any evidence, what is the problem? Trot along junior, go defend the wolves over at DoW. Cheers :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 04:52:05 PM
The problem is you don't have any evidence yet you continue to lie and spread misinformation that makes hunters look bad and stupid. Are you really going to sit here and try to tell people that you have this mountain of evidence but you're just sitting on it because you don't want to share it with anybody yet you will post in numerous forums and other places all of your wild conspiracy?Wolfy, It's OK you don't have any evidence. Just admit it and move on to something useful.Settle down wolfy...I just tossed out a half-dozen topics that if you were to discuss there might be something useful to consider...lately its just been absurd conspiracy thats not true and you know it. You lie more than any government agency...by a long-shot. I think we should set a timeline when all of your evidence will be reported and everyone will know wolves were planted...otherwise you have to move on to a new conspiracy :chuckle: :chuckle:
That's the cool thing about this evidence, time really doesn't matter anymore. By the time WDFW are finally forced to delist WA will be mostly wolf country.
We watch your falling down and now the name calling starts, are you going to stick with that one or jump around again? :chuckle:
If you and WC think we don't have any evidence, what is the problem? Trot along junior, go defend the wolves over at DoW. Cheers :chuckle:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 04:57:03 PM
Tell me more about this conspiracy in NE Washington. I'm eager to hear what you can come up with, as I've had my finger on the pulse of wolf activity up this way for quite a while.You are the only one with a different story. The wolves in the Methow came here from Canada, the wolves in NE came over from Glacier then up from central ID. There is evidence (real evidence) of those dispersals.
Again, you have nothing to base your claims on. We didn't have to get too creative and "discuss our arguments"... our argument is based on factual, defendable, evidence. Yours is based on a few "friend of a friend eyewitness accounts".
Fitkin is not the one in the valley that is over zealous.
"The wolves in the Methow came here from Canada, the wolves in NE came over from Glacier then up from central ID."
Theres a small problem with your factual, defendable evidence WC, the wolves in the NE didn't exist on paper in 2008. I'm sure they were planted before 2008, but I don't think it's wise on your part to let that bit of info out of the bag.
Will WDFW switch from migrating wolves to dispersals, now, did you get permission?
Rural folks all over WA have caught WDFW releasing wolves, I don't think WDFW really care what they have been caught at, they know they can lie, or threaten people to get out of any trouble. People that have to deal with wolves shoved on them don't count, it's the fans that control the vote that count, at the same time it sure isn't going to look too shiny when it comes out how WA really got most of it's wolves. And it is going too come out. :tup:
"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008
Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley
Is there a difference between “southcentral British Columbia” and “northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada”?
Perhaps the USFWS and WDFW should have gotten their story straight as to where they were going to say the wolves came from? I guess they couldn’t say, we hauled them in from Idaho with horse trailers, it just wouldn’t fit the narrative of: (“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” )"
"The wolves in the Methow came here from Canada, the wolves in NE came over from Glacier then up from central ID."
Sure you have, tell us more inside secrets. Where will the next wolf pack "migrate" from?
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 05:08:50 PM
The problem is you don't have any evidence yet you continue to lie and spread misinformation that makes hunters look bad and stupid. Are you really going to sit here and try to tell people that you have this mountain of evidence but you're just sitting on it because you don't want to share it with anybody yet you will post in numerous forums and other places all of your wild conspiracy?Wolfy, It's OK you don't have any evidence. Just admit it and move on to something useful.Settle down wolfy...I just tossed out a half-dozen topics that if you were to discuss there might be something useful to consider...lately its just been absurd conspiracy thats not true and you know it. You lie more than any government agency...by a long-shot. I think we should set a timeline when all of your evidence will be reported and everyone will know wolves were planted...otherwise you have to move on to a new conspiracy :chuckle: :chuckle:
That's the cool thing about this evidence, time really doesn't matter anymore. By the time WDFW are finally forced to delist WA will be mostly wolf country.
We watch your falling down and now the name calling starts, are you going to stick with that one or jump around again? :chuckle:
If you and WC think we don't have any evidence, what is the problem? Trot along junior, go defend the wolves over at DoW. Cheers :chuckle:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I don't think it makes hunters look bad, after all according to you and WC I'm not a real hunter, as far as stupid, the pro-wolf crowd has that herd bought up.
I think the knowledge that the truth on how most of the wolves ended up in WA might have a few people in the USFWS and WDFW worried, but at this point they just have to hang and rattle waiting for the day the info is released. I don't have anything to do with that anymore, as I already tried. Now it will be done by folks who know all the ends and outs. :tup:
I thought you were headed over to spend some time with DoW? :chuckle: Your buddy WC is still floundering around his last slip, hopefully he gets some firm footing somewhere. :tup:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 10, 2014, 05:13:34 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 05:15:35 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on June 10, 2014, 05:29:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 10, 2014, 05:36:18 PM
Post by: timberfaller on June 10, 2014, 08:16:05 PM
I guess the best way to put it is, idahohunter and wacoytehunter are doing pretty much what the NY Times is doing to the "boots on the ground" over the deserter in Afghanistan. They can't refute the story but attack the sources.
What kind of "credible evidence" you all looking for?? "Yes we at WFWD with our partners the Feds, have released(non-native species) in and around Twisp and Winthrop" Aint going to happen boys!
Just because you might spend you hunting seasons(if you do) in the Valley doesn't give you a "head knowledge" about what happens their year in and year out.
FYI on some of the "goings on" that have taken place in the Methow. Remember when the Salmon got listed?? We were inundated with public meetings. All timber sales were shut down(unemployment for some of us) only to go back to work the next year with ALL the best timber taken out of our sales(2 miles from the closest water). The water wars started, state and Feds called meetings and then held them "illegally" when our county Commissioner called them on it, at the one held at the airport, they just laughed it off. Go Figure!! Agenda First and foremost over doing things "legal"
We have acquired the RIGHT to question anything the state of Feds do in or around the METHOW. And if they claim "no we haven't done that" red flags immediately go up! Remember the "lynx" biologist fiasco??
Don't believe in "conspiracy theory's" ACTIONS speak louder then words.
Have a nice day! :hello:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 09:17:25 PM
Simply Amazing!!! :yike: People who don't live in the Methow KNOW more about it and what transpires in it then those who do, Simply Amazing!I know...its kind of sad isn't it? I would be embarrassed...but I think you and wolfy are so confused about your different conspiracies you don't even know which way is up anymore. :chuckle:
What kind of "credible evidence" you all looking for??Really, at this point ANYTHING credible would be wonderful. :tup:
Post by: mountainman on June 10, 2014, 09:17:49 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 10, 2014, 10:11:58 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2014, 10:37:43 PM
Wolfbait has been preaching how the credible evidence is coming on this forum for literally 5 years. He's been putting down the people who don't think along his lines. He's been calling people names. He's been all talk. It's time to put up or shut up in my opinion. Pretty sure that's what these other guys are saying too, but I'll let them say that for themselves.
I knew you would be back Jack! Yep, I have called you a few names in the past, but I have learned my lesson after getting banned a couple of times. :chuckle: Besides I realized you just aren't worth it. :tup:
Exposing WDFW and their wolf releases isn't in my corner anymore Jack, which in a way is a relief. People with more info then I had will pull the trigger. I highly doubt those responsible will be held accountable, just like the USFWS and their releases. But at least the people of WA will understand Where and how WA ended up with so many wolves so fast.
"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008
Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley
Is there a difference between “southcentral British Columbia” and “northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada”?
Perhaps the USFWS and WDFW should have gotten their story straight as to where they were going to say the wolves came from? I guess they couldn’t say, we hauled them in from Idaho with horse trailers, it just wouldn’t fit the narrative of: (“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” )"
And last but not least good old CNW have their DNA test results: "Conservation Northwest, a Bellingham-based organization that has monitored wolves in the North Cascades and advocated for their recovery"
"DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, Conservation Northwest said in a press release." http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
So now we have the USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia".
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
DNA test show wolves "migrated' from everywhere except Idaho, Wyoming or Montana. No shocker there. Maybe it's a good thing there are so many DNA test results, after all every wolf sighting in Okanogan county is suppose to be from the Lookout Pack.
Post by: mountainman on June 10, 2014, 10:56:55 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 10, 2014, 11:00:04 PM
Wolfbait has been preaching how the credible evidence is coming on this forum for literally 5 years. He's been putting down the people who don't think along his lines. He's been calling people names. He's been all talk. It's time to put up or shut up in my opinion. Pretty sure that's what these other guys are saying too, but I'll let them say that for themselves.Well said. :tup:Exposing WDFW and their wolf releases isn't in my corner anymore Jack, which in a way is a relief. People with more info then I had will pull the trigger. I highly doubt those responsible will be held accountable, just like the USFWS and their releases. But at least the people of WA will understand Where and how WA ended up with so many wolves so fast.Boy...if this isn't full on back pedaling I don't know what is! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
If its not your job anymore then will you promise to stop lying about wolf releases? Just let it go...figure out how to help wdfw collar more wolves and confirm more packs by reporting wolf sightings etc...something productive.
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2014, 07:51:40 AM
Wolfbait has been preaching how the credible evidence is coming on this forum for literally 5 years. He's been putting down the people who don't think along his lines. He's been calling people names. He's been all talk. It's time to put up or shut up in my opinion. Pretty sure that's what these other guys are saying too, but I'll let them say that for themselves.Well said. :tup:Exposing WDFW and their wolf releases isn't in my corner anymore Jack, which in a way is a relief. People with more info then I had will pull the trigger. I highly doubt those responsible will be held accountable, just like the USFWS and their releases. But at least the people of WA will understand Where and how WA ended up with so many wolves so fast.Boy...if this isn't full on back pedaling I don't know what is! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
If its not your job anymore then will you promise to stop lying about wolf releases? Just let it go...figure out how to help wdfw collar more wolves and confirm more packs by reporting wolf sightings etc...something productive.
The issue of WDFW releasing wolves in WA and then claiming all of them "migrated" will never go away, and it shouldn't the people of WA have the right to know the truth. Just like the fraud and corruption of the original wolf introduction, the same tactics are now being played out in many states, using state game agencies and the same failed "science". You can wish it would go away till the cows come home, but just like WDFW lying about wolf killed livestock, it will always come back to bite a chunk out of them.
If WDFW would have been honest from the start, WA wouldn't have the wolf problems that we have today.
Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
So now we have the USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia".
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2014, 08:03:36 AM
For the defenders of wolves naturally "migrating" to every corner of Washington state...why did these northern, southern B.C., Idaho wolves, (or wherever the daily opinion says they are from..oh yeah, science facts..) wait so many years to suddenly, and miraculously appear in the last few years? Why do we have warnings to keep pets and children inside up the Squillchuck here in Chelan@ county? Why, when warning shot fired up Pitcher canyon, the wolves continued to approach? Are they habituated to humans? How about the wolf shot in self defence up Harts pass? Habituated also? That story would have hit the news big time if it wasn't credible, wouldn't. It? Wolves roaming the edges of city limits in Wenatchee? Not your normal behavior of a" natural, migrated" wolf? Again, some will believe what they are spoon fed from the" specialists"...Like so many political issues...people need to learn to believe what they see, rather then what they are told..BTW Jackelope, reading back thru. These wolf topics, I read more sarcasm from those on the left of this issue, than from Wolfbait...just an observation..please re-read...
I don't need to reread anything. At this point in these discussions from me, there's nothing but sarcasm. I am wide open to admitting that. There's no point in trying anything else. Also I wouldn't necessarily say I'm "on the left of this issue". I have said before and I'll say it again. I would be Wolfbait's biggest supporter if he would provide the evidence he has been saying he has for the last 5 years. Aside from him calling me names, I have absolutely nothing against the guy. There's no need to call people names but aside from that...I admire his passion on this topic. Seriously, I do. I have just learned that there is no point in taking anything he says about his evidence conspiracy theory seriously because he hasn't backed up the evidence he's been preaching about for years now.
Your comments about wolves habituated to people...
Warning shots...just because an animal doesn't run at the sound of rifle shots means he is habituated to people? Have you ever seen a deer not run at the sound of a gun shot?
Wolves roaming around the city limits...are all the deer, lions, bears, rockchucks, bobcats, etc all habituated to people too because they're roaming around the city limits? How is that indicative of a wolf that was relocated in a truck versus one that walked there on it's own 4 legs?
I'm not sure how the wolf shot at Hart's Pass is indicative of a wolf habituated to humans. Bears attack people in the middle of nowhere where there is little to no human contact. How is that a sign of them being habituated to people?
Post by: timberfaller on June 11, 2014, 08:49:07 AM
Nice try but no banana for you! :chuckle:
If your ever in the Methow hunter, and you come up to a green pickup with exempt plates way back on a USFS road, and a fellow in a uniform comes back to your rig and threatens you with arrest, I would do as he says. Forget about the "dog carriers" in the bed, YOU saw nothing, nothing at all!! YOUR eyes are just fooling you, back away its only a "conspiracy".
Post by: haugenna on June 11, 2014, 09:10:43 AM
Your comments about wolves habituated to people...
Warning shots...just because an animal doesn't run at the sound of rifle shots means he is habituated to people? Have you ever seen a deer not run at the sound of a gun shot?
In Eatonville at the sportstmans' club we have to chase the deer off the range. Shooting doesn't bother them.
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2014, 09:15:52 AM
Your comments about wolves habituated to people...
Warning shots...just because an animal doesn't run at the sound of rifle shots means he is habituated to people? Have you ever seen a deer not run at the sound of a gun shot?
In Eatonville at the sportstmans' club we have to chase the deer off the range. Shooting doesn't bother them.
Obviously they're transplants.
There I go with my sarcasm again.
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 10:09:43 AM
Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 10:13:14 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2014, 11:32:35 AM
There are not 3 different answers. USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC. The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial. Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from. If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population. What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves :dunno:Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources. Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track. That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?
This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things. Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.
Post by: mountainman on June 11, 2014, 12:09:05 PM
You base much of your argument on what the media releases. What are your credentials, I am curious? And should those on Hunt-wa believe you more that first hand, eye witness accounts? You and Jackelope both? I tend to believe reports from those who spend their time in those areas on a day to day basis, rather then what the media spoons out to us...And before you retort with what my credentials are, no, I am not a scientist.. I just spend a lot of my time actually in these areas..
Post by: jackelope on June 11, 2014, 12:47:58 PM
I don't contest the idea that the wolves are there.
I do contest the idea that they were dumped there in a truck by WDFW.
I've seen the wolves in the Blues. They've been in my family's pasture. They've chased elk my friend was trying to kill. They've howled all around me in the northeast in the dark.
I don't spend a lot of time in Twisp and I've never claimed to, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm still waiting for the evidence that was going to be rammed down my throat 5 years ago.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2014, 12:57:17 PM
Are you a geneticist? Or a toxicologist? Have you seen firsthand the wolves in Twisp? Mazama? Loup Loup? Gold Creek? Pitcher Canyon? Four Corners? Coulter Creek? Eagle Creek? Number 2 canyon? Blewett. Pass? Badger mtn. ? Goose Prairie? Joseph Oregon? I have seen them in most of these areas, or have credible reports from trusted sources.No I am not a geneticist or toxicologist. But the immediate question was about why we were supposedly getting 3 different answers...and I agree with you..."2" of the answers were coming from less reliable media reports, but also folks interpretations were a little off base and there appeared to be some misunderstanding of how and what the results were.
You base much of your argument on what the media releases. What are your credentials, I am curious? And should those on Hunt-wa believe you more that first hand, eye witness accounts? You and Jackelope both? I tend to believe reports from those who spend their time in those areas on a day to day basis, rather then what the media spoons out to us...And before you retort with what my credentials are, no, I am not a scientist.. I just spend a lot of my time actually in these areas..
I am all for local knowledge...but in this case seeing wolves does not help answer the genetics issues. Certainly when it comes to wolf observations/reports I'm sure locals know the most. WDFW knows that too...its why they strongly encourage reporting sightings and evidence on their website to help focus their trapping efforts.
Now, when you say I base much of my argument on what the media releases what exactly are you talking about :dunno: I absolutely have no faith in journalists to report much credible scientific information...go read the hoof rot thread for a perfect example of that. I like to hear directly from the scientists and managers themselves...media is out to sell/tell a story...they like to report drama, controversy, outlier events etc. which often distorts reality. Wolf issues are absolutely a perfect storm for this kind of pseudo-science and its prevalent across the west...I'm not "pro-wolf"...but I am "anti-conspiracy" and "pro-logic" :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on June 11, 2014, 02:39:38 PM
Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Funny you should point this out. This came out the other day I believe...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/27763772 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/27763772)
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 03:06:04 PM
There are not 3 different answers. USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC. The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial. Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from. If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population. What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves :dunno:Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources. Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track. That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?
This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things. Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.
Let me see if I can wade through this ....
So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?
I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! :chuckle:
Post by: mountainman on June 11, 2014, 03:08:58 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 03:26:22 PM
Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Funny you should point this out. This came out the other day I believe...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/27763772 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/27763772)
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf
North American gray wolf subspecies
In 1944, American zoologist Edward Goldman recognized as many as 23 subspecies in North America, based on morphology alone.[41] In 1995, mammologist Ronald Nowak disputed these classifications, based on his comparison of numerous wolf skulls from throughout the continent. He concluded that there are only five North American subspecies: C. l. occidentalis, C. l. nubilus, C. l. arctos, C. l. baileyi and C. l. lycaon. Wilson et al. (2000), a genetic study of canids from Algonquin Provincial Park, indicated that C. l. lycaon was a separate species from C. lupus, more closely related to C. rufus.[42]
In a monograph prepared within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), Chambers et al. (2012) reviewed many genetic studies and concluded that the eastern wolf and red wolf are separate species from the gray wolf, having originated in North America 150,000–300,000 years ago from the same line as coyotes. The Chambers review concluded that the subspecific status of C. l. arctos is doubtful, as Arctic wolf populations do not possess unique haplotypes.[8] However, the Chambers review became controversial, forcing the USF&WS to commission a peer review of it, known as NCAES (2014).[43] This peer review concluded unanimously that the Chambers review "is not accepted as consensus scientific opinion or best available science..."
The taxonomy of wolves in the coastal rainforests of British Columbia and southeastern Alaska has also followed a variable path, regarding the putative Vancouver Island wolf (C. l. crassodon) and Alexander Archipelago wolf (C. l. ligoni), respectively. Based on skull morphometrics, C. l. ligoni was recognized by Goldman (1944), Hall (1981) and Pedersen (1982) as a distinct population possibly warranting subspecific classification; however, Nowak (1996) considered it to be an isolated population of C. l. nubilis.[44] From 2005 to 2014 several studies and the NCAES (2014) peer review have found the pacific coastal wolves to have a phenotypically distinct genotype.[45][46][47][48][49]
There was actually 23 sub-species of wolves recognized before wolf introduction in the rocky mountains, but in 1995 they were reclassified, it appears it was convenient to claim that most of the wolf subspecies were all simply gray wolves so they could justify bringing Canadian grays from northern Canada to plant in MT/WY/ID. Then it appears when they wanted to create distinct populations in the southwest and northeast that the taxonomy needed to be reclassified. Now it appears it might be convenient for yet another reclassification of wolves to hopefully keep WA/OR/CA from delisting.
Maybe it's just a coincidence all this happens at just the right time to benefit pro-wolf interests.
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 03:35:17 PM
Maybe we can get Jay Carney to explain it better?
"Were really only stretching the truth a little!" :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2014, 04:40:09 PM
The wolves captured near twisp in 2008 had a genetic profile most similar to wolves found in S.C. BC :tup:There are not 3 different answers. USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC. The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial. Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from. If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population. What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves :dunno:Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources. Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track. That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?
This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things. Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.
Let me see if I can wade through this ....
So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?
I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! :chuckle:
I would stick with the USFWS report...I do not consider CNW website posts and the Methow Valley News as the best source for scientific information on the genetic analyses of wild animals. The quotes about wolves coming down from Northern BC...how easy is it to distinguish N. BC from SC BC? I don't know...is it important...probably not. The issue is: were these wolves from the NRM DPS or from BC...thats whats important and the answer was clear...they are from BC. Again, I think you don't understand the genetic analyses very well and that is making it difficult for you to correctly interpret what is actually being reported...ESPECIALLY when you are comparing a scientific summary from USFWS to the gossip columns on CNW and a small town newspaper. Also, none of the reports provide certainty levels...so while folks are drawn to the "where did the wolves come from" the scientists report that as a probability (think in terms of drawing a tag :chuckle: )...is it 85% probability they came from SC BC or was the probability 15% but that is the most likely source from the genetic database they had to draw from?
I've probably not cleared this up for you because I'm not a professional geneticist, but I don't see any lying or inconsistency here. Furthermore, this whole "where did the wolves come from" is rooted in this bs about wolves being transplanted...folks who believe WDFW and USFWS are committing serious felonies and illegaly transplanting wolves around washington probably do not have the cognitive skills to understand the genetics work that is being done. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2014, 04:44:28 PM
Post by: mountainman on June 11, 2014, 05:07:06 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2014, 05:16:40 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 05:54:38 PM
The wolves captured near twisp in 2008 had a genetic profile most similar to wolves found in S.C. BC :tup:There are not 3 different answers. USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC. The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial. Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from. If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population. What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves :dunno:Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources. Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track. That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?
This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things. Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.
Let me see if I can wade through this ....
So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?
I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! :chuckle:
I would stick with the USFWS report...I do not consider CNW website posts and the Methow Valley News as the best source for scientific information on the genetic analyses of wild animals. The quotes about wolves coming down from Northern BC...how easy is it to distinguish N. BC from SC BC? I don't know...is it important...probably not. The issue is: were these wolves from the NRM DPS or from BC...thats whats important and the answer was clear...they are from BC. Again, I think you don't understand the genetic analyses very well and that is making it difficult for you to correctly interpret what is actually being reported...ESPECIALLY when you are comparing a scientific summary from USFWS to the gossip columns on CNW and a small town newspaper. Also, none of the reports provide certainty levels...so while folks are drawn to the "where did the wolves come from" the scientists report that as a probability (think in terms of drawing a tag :chuckle: )...is it 85% probability they came from SC BC or was the probability 15% but that is the most likely source from the genetic database they had to draw from?
I've probably not cleared this up for you because I'm not a professional geneticist, but I don't see any lying or inconsistency here. Furthermore, this whole "where did the wolves come from" is rooted in this bs about wolves being transplanted...folks who believe WDFW and USFWS are committing serious felonies and illegaly transplanting wolves around washington probably do not have the cognitive skills to understand the genetics work that is being done. :twocents:
I don't really care where the wolves came from at this point, they are here, they are multiplying, I simply want reasonable management to happen. I don't know anything about genetics, don't claim to, like most citizens I rely on others (mostly the agencies) for accurate information. Wolfbait posted some info that certainly raises questions. Your replies have added to the questions raised.
I am surprised that you didn't support the reported statements by WDFW (Fitkin)!
Feel free to unload your sarcasm and profanity on me too!
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2014, 06:11:44 PM
Paint yourself as a victim if you want. There's plenty of sarcasm on all sides and you will be hard pressed to find profanity from me.The wolves captured near twisp in 2008 had a genetic profile most similar to wolves found in S.C. BC :tup:There are not 3 different answers. USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC. The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial. Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from. If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population. What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves :dunno:Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources. Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track. That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?
This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things. Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.
Let me see if I can wade through this ....
So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?
I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! :chuckle:
I would stick with the USFWS report...I do not consider CNW website posts and the Methow Valley News as the best source for scientific information on the genetic analyses of wild animals. The quotes about wolves coming down from Northern BC...how easy is it to distinguish N. BC from SC BC? I don't know...is it important...probably not. The issue is: were these wolves from the NRM DPS or from BC...thats whats important and the answer was clear...they are from BC. Again, I think you don't understand the genetic analyses very well and that is making it difficult for you to correctly interpret what is actually being reported...ESPECIALLY when you are comparing a scientific summary from USFWS to the gossip columns on CNW and a small town newspaper. Also, none of the reports provide certainty levels...so while folks are drawn to the "where did the wolves come from" the scientists report that as a probability (think in terms of drawing a tag :chuckle: )...is it 85% probability they came from SC BC or was the probability 15% but that is the most likely source from the genetic database they had to draw from?
I've probably not cleared this up for you because I'm not a professional geneticist, but I don't see any lying or inconsistency here. Furthermore, this whole "where did the wolves come from" is rooted in this bs about wolves being transplanted...folks who believe WDFW and USFWS are committing serious felonies and illegaly transplanting wolves around washington probably do not have the cognitive skills to understand the genetics work that is being done. :twocents:
Feel free to unload your sarcasm and profanity on me too!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 07:45:42 PM
Paint yourself as a victim if you want. There's plenty of sarcasm on all sides and you will be hard pressed to find profanity from me.The wolves captured near twisp in 2008 had a genetic profile most similar to wolves found in S.C. BC :tup:There are not 3 different answers. USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC. The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial. Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from. If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population. What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves :dunno:Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources. Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track. That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?
This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things. Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.
Let me see if I can wade through this ....
So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?
I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! :chuckle:
I would stick with the USFWS report...I do not consider CNW website posts and the Methow Valley News as the best source for scientific information on the genetic analyses of wild animals. The quotes about wolves coming down from Northern BC...how easy is it to distinguish N. BC from SC BC? I don't know...is it important...probably not. The issue is: were these wolves from the NRM DPS or from BC...thats whats important and the answer was clear...they are from BC. Again, I think you don't understand the genetic analyses very well and that is making it difficult for you to correctly interpret what is actually being reported...ESPECIALLY when you are comparing a scientific summary from USFWS to the gossip columns on CNW and a small town newspaper. Also, none of the reports provide certainty levels...so while folks are drawn to the "where did the wolves come from" the scientists report that as a probability (think in terms of drawing a tag :chuckle: )...is it 85% probability they came from SC BC or was the probability 15% but that is the most likely source from the genetic database they had to draw from?
I've probably not cleared this up for you because I'm not a professional geneticist, but I don't see any lying or inconsistency here. Furthermore, this whole "where did the wolves come from" is rooted in this bs about wolves being transplanted...folks who believe WDFW and USFWS are committing serious felonies and illegaly transplanting wolves around washington probably do not have the cognitive skills to understand the genetics work that is being done. :twocents:
Feel free to unload your sarcasm and profanity on me too!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Many members have cleaned up their posts but your continued sarcasm, name calling, etc. isn't helping, it would simply be nice if you would clean it up a bit too. Thanks
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 08:41:48 PM
For the record, at this point it appears wolfbait was actually correct that WDFW and USFWS are claiming different origins of the pack. So there are certainly questions regarding either the claims or the validity of the DNA evidence of where this pack originated.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a)
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
NEWS RELEASE
July 23, 2008
Contact: Harriet Allen, (360) 902-2694
Quote
Preliminary results from additional genetic testing indicate the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations. More comprehensive testing is currently being conducted to determine more specific information.
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Quote
DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
Post by: timberfaller on June 11, 2014, 08:52:20 PM
Like 2008 is something new :chuckle:
:stirthepot: :sry:
Post by: coyotestalker22250 on June 11, 2014, 09:11:46 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 11, 2014, 09:44:35 PM
No smoking gun, but the WDFW News Release says: "the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations". I looked further through WDFW New Releases and did not see where WDFW changed their statement regarding the origin of the wolves.This is where I disagree. The genetic method for assigning region or population of origin is not equivalent to getting a dna sample from a human and finding a "match" at the crime scene a la CSI. Rather, it is a probabilistic measure of how similar the genotype of one animal is to other sub-populations. Basically, they have a DNA "database" and they are not looking for a "match"...they are saying what population in our database is closest to the sample we collected. The USFWS report that was linked indicated S.C. BC. If another sample somebody assigned it to Northern BC that is not really inconsistent...wolves migrate large distances and this type of genetic analysis is not some fool proof evaluation like determining whether blood from this guy matches blood at a crime scene....which can be done with almost absolute certainty.
For the record, at this point it appears wolfbait was actually correct that WDFW and USFWS are claiming different origins of the pack. So there are certainly questions regarding either the claims or the validity of the DNA evidence of where this pack originated.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a)
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
NEWS RELEASE
July 23, 2008
Contact: Harriet Allen, (360) 902-2694QuotePreliminary results from additional genetic testing indicate the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations. More comprehensive testing is currently being conducted to determine more specific information.
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)QuoteDNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
Not to mention, the news releases are dumbed down to an 8th grade or less reading level so they can be interpreted by the general public with ease...so if you want to get into specifics to debate the origin of wolves from a pack in say Twisp we need to dig up the actual analyses and not rely on watered down news clips where a journalist and not a scientist makes the call on what exactly gets said.
But as you mentioned earlier...I don't think this is really even an issue at this point. Wolves are here and they are not going anywhere. A poll by WDFW showed little support for general wolf hunting seasons (~30% support) and if there are cases where ungulate herds were decreasing because of wolves it was about 50/50 whether wolf control measures should be taken to protect ungulates. We hunters have to do a better job showing the non-hunting voters in this state that we are reasonable, balanced, informed folks who are interested in conserving all of washingtons wildlife. There is no doubt that wolf management/wolf hunting will ultimately end up on the ballot box in this state and it will make the hound/bait stuff look like a pillow fight. Claiming conspiracy after conspiracy and attacking wdfw will not help us, and I can't say it enough: WDFW IS OUR BIGGEST ALLY...especially since we will be asking the public to trust that wdfw will manage their wolves like all the other wildlife in this state.
Post by: villageidiot on June 11, 2014, 10:29:46 PM
Unfortunately the folks making the biggest sacrafices only have one vote . :bash:
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2014, 04:52:59 AM
So my question is can the USFWS, WDFW and CNW manipulate or lie about DNA testing to fit their narrative? It would seem the narrative that all three agencies are trying to achieve is to stay completely away from the wolves in ID, MT and WY:
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”
By the way what is an unnatural migration? or unnatural colonization?
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2014, 09:42:39 AM
No smoking gun, but the WDFW News Release says: "the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations". I looked further through WDFW New Releases and did not see where WDFW changed their statement regarding the origin of the wolves.This is where I disagree. The genetic method for assigning region or population of origin is not equivalent to getting a dna sample from a human and finding a "match" at the crime scene a la CSI. Rather, it is a probabilistic measure of how similar the genotype of one animal is to other sub-populations. Basically, they have a DNA "database" and they are not looking for a "match"...they are saying what population in our database is closest to the sample we collected. The USFWS report that was linked indicated S.C. BC. If another sample somebody assigned it to Northern BC that is not really inconsistent...wolves migrate large distances and this type of genetic analysis is not some fool proof evaluation like determining whether blood from this guy matches blood at a crime scene....which can be done with almost absolute certainty.
For the record, at this point it appears wolfbait was actually correct that WDFW and USFWS are claiming different origins of the pack. So there are certainly questions regarding either the claims or the validity of the DNA evidence of where this pack originated.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=jul2308a)
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
NEWS RELEASE
July 23, 2008
Contact: Harriet Allen, (360) 902-2694QuotePreliminary results from additional genetic testing indicate the two wolves likely originated from British Columbia-Alberta populations. More comprehensive testing is currently being conducted to determine more specific information.
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)QuoteDNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
Not to mention, the news releases are dumbed down to an 8th grade or less reading level so they can be interpreted by the general public with ease...so if you want to get into specifics to debate the origin of wolves from a pack in say Twisp we need to dig up the actual analyses and not rely on watered down news clips where a journalist and not a scientist makes the call on what exactly gets said.
But as you mentioned earlier...I don't think this is really even an issue at this point. Wolves are here and they are not going anywhere. A poll by WDFW showed little support for general wolf hunting seasons (~30% support) and if there are cases where ungulate herds were decreasing because of wolves it was about 50/50 whether wolf control measures should be taken to protect ungulates. We hunters have to do a better job showing the non-hunting voters in this state that we are reasonable, balanced, informed folks who are interested in conserving all of washingtons wildlife. There is no doubt that wolf management/wolf hunting will ultimately end up on the ballot box in this state and it will make the hound/bait stuff look like a pillow fight. Claiming conspiracy after conspiracy and attacking wdfw will not help us, and I can't say it enough: WDFW IS OUR BIGGEST ALLY...especially since we will be asking the public to trust that wdfw will manage their wolves like all the other wildlife in this state.
I bet if WDFW took their polls where they have dumped wolves on rural people, the outcome would be quite a bit different. To include people who haven't had to deal with wolves killing their livestock, dogs and seeing the wolf killed deer, people who believe everything WDFW tells them about the wolves, in other wards the brainwashed, I'm sure the polls will favor WDFandWolves.
Now that WDFW, USFWS and CNW have been caught lying about DNA testing on the Lookout pack, you all of a sudden don't want to rely on the tests? The tests are just too complicated for normal people, only extra smart people at WDFW can figure out DNA tests? :chuckle: You crack me up Idaho-H.
"We hunters have to do a better job showing the non-hunting voters in this state that we are reasonable, balanced, informed folks who are interested in conserving all of washingtons wildlife. There is no doubt that wolf management/wolf hunting will ultimately end up on the ballot box in this state and it will make the hound/bait stuff look like a pillow fight. Claiming conspiracy after conspiracy and attacking wdfw will not help us, and I can't say it enough: WDFW IS OUR BIGGEST ALLY...especially since we will be asking the public to trust that wdfw will manage their wolves like all the other wildlife in this state".
We hunters need to keep doing the same thing we have been doing, educating the public about the fraud and corruption of the wolf introduction and how the same corruption is now being used in states that wolves suddenly show up in. Telling the truth is not conspiracies as the pro-wolf crown would like everyone to believe. What the pro-wolf crowd would like is, for everyone to just shut up and wait patently for delisting, which won't happen until the USFWS and WDFW figure there are enough wolves in WA to do maximum damage.
You say WDFW is our biggest ally, are we talking about the same outfit that is protecting predators instead of controlling them? The same outfit that appointed the wolf working group stacked with pro-wolfers? The agency that gave WA the most liberal wolf plan created to this date, in a state with a larger population of people, smaller herds, and less public land? The same WDFW that lied about livestock killed by wolves, and that claim in order to get Hydatid disease people must eat wolf scat? And also said when wolves impacts on the ungulates is finally noticed hunting will be limited in order to feed the wolves? The same outfit that repeats over and over that the wolves naturally migrated, when rural folks know the wolves were planted and are still being released. I guess you must have forgotten these aspects of WDFW? I sure can't see where WDFW are our ally.
WDFW have Defenders of Wildlife on their web site, and they work hand in hand with Conservation Northwest confirming wolves etc., environmentalists that will sue to keep wolves on the ESA. I don't see BearPaw Outfitters on WDFW's site or any other outfitters which would have a better chance of convincing me that WDFW were our ally, then say a bunch of wolf promoting environmentalists.
WDFW reminds me of the recent VA scandal in many ways. The guy on top claims to know nothing and all the flunkies below are protecting wolves with lies and more fraud. Just another day in wolf-land.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 12, 2014, 10:20:22 AM
The genetic evaluations try to assign a region of origin but I don't see why we should care that much about this point...if you want to dwell on it though I suggest you go read up on genetic assignment techniques so that you can better understand the uncertainty associated with grabbing a dna sample from a wild, highly migratory animal and then trying to assign it back to a sub-group. There is not the level of certainty most folks are familiar with when it comes to dna testing where you are trying to determine if one sample is an identical match to another sample. Uncertainty in science is nothing new and yet you seem to be claiming this uncertainty shows weakness or conspiracy...all it does is demonstrate how little you understand about scientific process. This is precisely why we have professional scientists manage our wildlife.
Yes, WDFW is our biggest ally when it comes to managing wildlife. Does it mean they do everything we want? No. But they are responsible for managing wildlife and hunting...if you are a hunter they are your ally. Plain and simple.
Find ways to work with them to improve management, don't just whine and snivel about how horrible they are. There are a lot of folks who contribute a lot to help provide direction/advice/input on how wdfw can better serve sportsmen and it would be nice if you would join their ranks and do so without constantly trying to denigrate wdfw staff.
Post by: mountainman on June 12, 2014, 10:32:05 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 12, 2014, 10:35:48 AM
Sounding like a lady we all know, who also said" What does it matter now?"...I don't really care where the wolves came from at this point, they are here.
Post by: bobcat on June 12, 2014, 10:48:05 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2014, 12:25:25 PM
Sounding like a lady we all know, who also said" What does it matter now?"...I don't really care where the wolves came from at this point, they are here.
I think it matters where the wolves came from and how they got to WA. Then the question to WDFW is why you did not confirm these wolves as you released and monitored them? Why did you lie and say they came from three different places? Why didn't you delist years ago and why didn't you respond to reported wolf sightings from people when you knew all along they were seeing wolves? Why did you release wolves in WA after seeing what has happened in ID, MT and Wyoming? These are all questions that WDFW will have to answer at some point in time in the future, why not come clean before their fat is in the fire.
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2014, 01:07:15 PM
I saw three wolves in the Chiwawa unit in 1990. So, they've been here a while.
We saw wolves in the Methow Valley in the early 90's, we were told by the USFS to keep it hushed as they were planted wolves.
Remember the USFWS, WDFW, and DoW wolf push of the 1980's and 90's?.
In Washington, Feds Opt For Wolf Introduction Over Recovery
Yesterday we learned there were 6 packs of wolves living in Washington’s Cascade area prior to 1991 and that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife fails to inform Washington citizens of this fact while debating the recent plans for wolf management.
Apparently, this common knowledge of the existence of wolves in at least the Cascades and Olympic Peninsula, had been swept under the rug all as part of an effort to promote introduction of gray wolves from Canada rather than spend what little money was available on recovery efforts. From the Seattle Times, 1997:
Biologists say gray wolves, migrating from Canada, have begun to repopulate the Cascades in small numbers during the past decade. But in 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service cut the roughly $200,000 being spent annually on recovery efforts for wolves and grizzly bears in the North Cascades, diverting the money to programs in Idaho.
This link provides more information about wolves in the Cascades region of Washington.
With evidence that has been around for some time and denied by most wolf advocates, it appears that even though many felt dollars and effort should be put into recovery of the wolves that were known to roam parts of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Washington, but instead all efforts were abandoned in favor of introduction. From the Seattle Times, 1991:
For the past decade, gray wolves have been gradually making their way south from Canada, extending their range down the spine of the Rocky Mountains, and are now living in several Western states from which they were exterminated half a century ago.
An estimated 40 to 50 wolves now live in Montana, with smaller numbers in Idaho and perhaps even some in Wyoming.
In April of 1992, the Seattle Times once again reports of meetings scheduled in communities to discuss the USFWS’s plans for Canadian Gray Wolf introductions into the Yellowstone region. All part of the efforts to create an Environmental Impact Statement. The Times reported that Washington residents should be concerned about this effort as it could become a model of how the state should recover gray wolves already living in that state.
Why should Seattleites care? Aside from being a controversial topic expected to draw comments from friends and foes of the wolf nationwide, the Yellowstone EIS could serve as a model for a plan to manage wolves that are rehabitating Washington state.
State wildlife agents already have identified six packs of wolves in Washington’s Cascades, and more are expected to migrate from Canada to the state’s protected forests.
In a pro wolf article in the Seattle Times in 1992, covering an event involving wolf advocates and their hopes for wolf recovery, the story pretty much remains the same as to the existence of wolves in Washington.
Originally planned as part of a recovery program for the northern Rockies, where wolves were brought in, the effort could become unique to Washington because of the apparently burgeoning population.
For example, 100 sightings were reported in 1981, and last year there were 200, ranging as far south as Mount St. Helens, Almak said.
Note: Is it puzzling that an article written in 1992 mentions that “wolves were brought in” to recover wolves in the Northern Rockies?
Again in 1992 a gray wolf was captured and collared in Washington. What was the chatter all about concerning this wolf and others?
Pierce said the animals probably are migrating south from Canada, where wolves still are hunted.
“It appears we’re in the early stages of re-colonization of the former range in Washington,” he said. There’s evidence the animals are breeding as far south as the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area just north of Stevens Pass, Pierce added.
Indications are that wolves were naturally recovering in parts of Washington and yet what little money was available for recovery was hauled away and dumped into introduction of wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho. Why? Another question everyone should be asking is why at this date when Washington is working on drafting a new wolf management plan, acting as though migration of wolves from Idaho is the first time wolves ever stepped foot there, is there no mention of the wolves that have been breeding and growing there before this apparent migration?
In 2002, environmentalists lined up in droves to petition the USFWS to introduce wolves into Washington. There was no mention at this time of existing wolves in Washington.
What becomes obvious is the lack of transparency and honesty when it comes to dealing with the general public such as in Washington’s effort to draft a new wolf management plan. What’s to hide? Is pretending that this is the first time wolves have made a presence in Washington somehow going to ensure the recovery of wolves? Is there somehow a need to lie in order to achieve the goals of wolf recovery? Don’t the people of Washington and every other state in the this great Union, deserve to know the truth about the history of wolves? In Washington, isn’t it still important to tell the people that wolves recovered on their own as early as 1991 and yet all efforts to recover this species was abandoned in favor of introduction into Yellowstone? Is denying the facts in the best interest of drafting a wolf management plan?
And the biggest question of all: Has there EVER been any honesty and transparency about wolf recovery?
Tom Remington
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
Post by: jasnt on June 12, 2014, 02:51:28 PM
Post by: AspenBud on June 12, 2014, 03:14:04 PM
I dout any migration occurred. Other wise they would have done it 50years ago. Use some common sense folks. We had no wolves till they where brought to us. What's next
Common sense would dictate that if a wolf can walk to California and back from Oregon they can wander in to Washington from Idaho. What has or has not come in from Canada, I don't know. But I'm going to guess something changed up in BC as far as wolf hunting goes, at least for a time.
Post by: jasnt on June 12, 2014, 05:03:06 PM
Post by: AspenBud on June 12, 2014, 10:39:38 PM
Exactly my point. They could have done this any time they chose. Why now. Why not when game was more plentiful and less people where in eastern Washington yet as soon as they BROUGHT them to Yellowstone they started showing up all over!
I think the ones coming from Idaho are the product of what was released there, not any mystery release in Washington. I think they've always come across the border with Canada, but until the government turned them loose elsewhere in the country no one gave them much of a second thought. They "didn't exist" so they got shot or people didn't believe their eyes.
Post by: wolfbait on June 13, 2014, 05:26:35 AM
Exactly my point. They could have done this any time they chose. Why now. Why not when game was more plentiful and less people where in eastern Washington yet as soon as they BROUGHT them to Yellowstone they started showing up all over!
I think the ones coming from Idaho are the product of what was released there, not any mystery release in Washington. I think they've always come across the border with Canada, but until the government turned them loose elsewhere in the country no one gave them much of a second thought. They "didn't exist" so they got shot or people didn't believe their eyes.
Like you said not many mystery releases, here are a few real releases.
So my wife went home to reardan this weekend and her dad owns some land by hawk creek, just outside of Davenport and he witnessed the fish and game release 4 wolves onto his property 10 feet from his pasture where he has cows, he flipped and almost killed 6 people, the fish and game said they could release wolves on private property without getting permison, anyone out there know if they legally can do that?http://washington-hunters.com/wolf-disc … k.facebook
In May 2009 WDFW bought the rest of the Golden Doe ranch outside of Twisp WA, the first thing they did was releases wolves on it, and they were caught in the act. Their wolves killed a cow and a new calf right off the bat. A friend of mine put a trail camera on it right after it happened, we have pictures of WDFW inspecting the cow, it shows that the only damage on the cow is her hind-end is eaten. Funny thing is they failed to mention the new calf, when they ran to the papers and lied about what killed the cow, they some how forgot all about the new calf. http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pres (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pres) … estigators
Talked to a good buddy of mine and he informed me that a friend of his fathers was up in the Ellensburg area and noticed WDFW vehicle and trailer and was wondering what they were doing and started taking pictures as they released a pair of wolves. Later he contacted the WDFW and they denied everything until he told them he was going to the media and that changed there tune and they admitted they released a mating pair of wolves http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index) … 788.0.html
Here's another one: Was talking to a teacher yesterday at the meeting who and brought some students to watch the proceedings.
He was telling us about one of his buddies that works for one of the counties in SW Washington. That he was out plowing the road to clear snow off. And a bunch of WDFW employees would not let him continue up the road. He said that they had a horse trailer with kennels in the back. He said he had to threaten them with the cops before they would let him to continue to do his job. Sounds like you are right about transplanting wolves already on Mt. St. Helens.
My Veterinarian encountered a trucker outside of Spokane Washington at a rest area, Curiosity got the best of my Vet as his dog was very upset. So he talked with the trucker and he showed him his cargo, he had 68 crates on board, Some had 2 wolves, some had one wolf, all were destined to be released in the Olympic National Forest, that was in May of this year (2011).
The truck driver was interviewed and he said the wolves came out of the Yellowstone.
http://www.northwestwolfsightings.org/P (http://www.northwestwolfsightings.org/P) … #anchor_72
7-2012 Found out some first hand interesting info yesterday for those of us that live in Clark County WA. My husband and his buddy were out hiking in the Yacolt burn yesterday and they ran into a group of young guys and after talking a bit my husband had asked if they had seen any coyotes since that is what they were really after. The guy said yea my dad saw a "HUGE coyote his back stood about two and half three feet tall" He was talking about a wolf but didn't know at that point my hubby knows about the wolf issues. So my hubby said you mean a wolf? The guy says "Im calling them large coyotes since DFW wont admit they're here so when we shoot them we can say oh I thought they were coyotes and we didn't have them here yet" He went on to tell my husband that in the same place his friend came upon some fish and wildlife guys that had cages in the back of their truck. Just as he pulled up on them he counted about 8 wolves running into the brush. He asked what they were up to and there was a lot of Ummm's and stumbling over stories and they told him it was a research project. Then they got out of there fast. So needless to say they are only about 20 miles from my house now!
I talk to one of our Okanogan county commissioners about some of these releases a few years ago, and have heard of others since. The county commissioner told me of releases in the Methow which I hadn't heard about. And yet WDFW claim they are white as snow with no wolf releases, it is no wonder rural folks have no respect for WDFW.
Post by: AspenBud on June 13, 2014, 07:24:46 AM
Exactly my point. They could have done this any time they chose. Why now. Why not when game was more plentiful and less people where in eastern Washington yet as soon as they BROUGHT them to Yellowstone they started showing up all over!
I think the ones coming from Idaho are the product of what was released there, not any mystery release in Washington. I think they've always come across the border with Canada, but until the government turned them loose elsewhere in the country no one gave them much of a second thought. They "didn't exist" so they got shot or people didn't believe their eyes.
Like you said not many mystery releases, here are a few real releases.
So my wife went home to reardan this weekend and her dad owns some land by hawk creek, just outside of Davenport and he witnessed the fish and game release 4 wolves onto his property 10 feet from his pasture where he has cows, he flipped and almost killed 6 people, the fish and game said they could release wolves on private property without getting permison, anyone out there know if they legally can do that?http://washington-hunters.com/wolf-disc … k.facebook
In May 2009 WDFW bought the rest of the Golden Doe ranch outside of Twisp WA, the first thing they did was releases wolves on it, and they were caught in the act. Their wolves killed a cow and a new calf right off the bat. A friend of mine put a trail camera on it right after it happened, we have pictures of WDFW inspecting the cow, it shows that the only damage on the cow is her hind-end is eaten. Funny thing is they failed to mention the new calf, when they ran to the papers and lied about what killed the cow, they some how forgot all about the new calf. http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pres (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pres) … estigators
Talked to a good buddy of mine and he informed me that a friend of his fathers was up in the Ellensburg area and noticed WDFW vehicle and trailer and was wondering what they were doing and started taking pictures as they released a pair of wolves. Later he contacted the WDFW and they denied everything until he told them he was going to the media and that changed there tune and they admitted they released a mating pair of wolves http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index) … 788.0.html
Here's another one: Was talking to a teacher yesterday at the meeting who and brought some students to watch the proceedings.
He was telling us about one of his buddies that works for one of the counties in SW Washington. That he was out plowing the road to clear snow off. And a bunch of WDFW employees would not let him continue up the road. He said that they had a horse trailer with kennels in the back. He said he had to threaten them with the cops before they would let him to continue to do his job. Sounds like you are right about transplanting wolves already on Mt. St. Helens.
My Veterinarian encountered a trucker outside of Spokane Washington at a rest area, Curiosity got the best of my Vet as his dog was very upset. So he talked with the trucker and he showed him his cargo, he had 68 crates on board, Some had 2 wolves, some had one wolf, all were destined to be released in the Olympic National Forest, that was in May of this year (2011).
The truck driver was interviewed and he said the wolves came out of the Yellowstone.
http://www.northwestwolfsightings.org/P (http://www.northwestwolfsightings.org/P) … #anchor_72
7-2012 Found out some first hand interesting info yesterday for those of us that live in Clark County WA. My husband and his buddy were out hiking in the Yacolt burn yesterday and they ran into a group of young guys and after talking a bit my husband had asked if they had seen any coyotes since that is what they were really after. The guy said yea my dad saw a "HUGE coyote his back stood about two and half three feet tall" He was talking about a wolf but didn't know at that point my hubby knows about the wolf issues. So my hubby said you mean a wolf? The guy says "Im calling them large coyotes since DFW wont admit they're here so when we shoot them we can say oh I thought they were coyotes and we didn't have them here yet" He went on to tell my husband that in the same place his friend came upon some fish and wildlife guys that had cages in the back of their truck. Just as he pulled up on them he counted about 8 wolves running into the brush. He asked what they were up to and there was a lot of Ummm's and stumbling over stories and they told him it was a research project. Then they got out of there fast. So needless to say they are only about 20 miles from my house now!
I talk to one of our Okanogan county commissioners about some of these releases a few years ago, and have heard of others since. The county commissioner told me of releases in the Methow which I hadn't heard about. And yet WDFW claim they are white as snow with no wolf releases, it is no wonder rural folks have no respect for WDFW.
Again, who is the commissioner, who is the vet mentioned above, the teacher? There's a lot of "I talked to a person who said they saw wolves released" but no mention of names.
Here's my problem with all of this Wolfbait. Once, about two decades ago, my old man was the editor of a weekly paper and he allowed a story about black helicopters being seen in Clark County to be published. The story was a joke, a lie, but boy oh boy did the weirdos come out and want to talk to him about what he'd seen.
On another occasion people started calling in because they thought the government was doing something suspicious because men were seen in boats wearing camo and carrying firearms. They slinked off once he explained to them that there was an early goose season that year.
People lie, don't understand what they are seeing, and bend the truth. The day someone comes up with video and pictures of such releases I might pay attention, but until then...
Post by: headshot5 on June 13, 2014, 07:54:48 AM
Quote
People lie, don't understand what they are seeing, and bend the truth. The day someone comes up with video and pictures of such releases I might pay attention, but until then...
Believe it or not the WDFW is made up of people too...
Post by: idahohuntr on June 13, 2014, 08:49:20 AM
Again, if this is what folks are using to suggest wdfw plants wolves, they must really be grasping at straws!
Post by: AspenBud on June 13, 2014, 02:15:08 PM
QuotePeople lie, don't understand what they are seeing, and bend the truth. The day someone comes up with video and pictures of such releases I might pay attention, but until then...
Believe it or not the WDFW is made up of people too...
That's certainly true and government agencies are not always honest, hello Hanford.
But in this instance I have my doubts about all of these stories. Out of all of these instances no one had a smart phone on them to take a picture or a video of the DFW folks involved not to mention the wolves? No one has names of people to call? It's always "a county commissioner" or "I talked with a guy" or "there was this UPS driver." You may as well be talking to a Sasquatch believer running around whooping and screaming in the woods claiming the coyote (or wolf) that replied was a "squatch."
No one ever made a secret out of releasing wolves in Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho. Why would they bother to do so in Washington and Oregon?
Post by: AspenBud on June 13, 2014, 02:25:29 PM
Where did the Lookout pack come from? :chuckle:
USFWS with>>> "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf)
WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley)
Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/)
That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"
I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. :dunno:
Sorry to dig this up again, but simply for the sake of discussion, based on this from Montana Fish and Wildlife I'd guess most any wolf showing up these days could have a mix of DNA.
"In 1995, three family groups (a total of 14 wolves) were captured near Alberta's Jasper National Park, transported to Yellowstone National Park, and placed in acclimation pens. They were held for 10 weeks prior to release. Two of the females subsequently denned and produced nine pups in Montana. Most settled in the same vicinity of their acclimation pens, demonstrating the potental advantages of a "soft" release technique.
Also in the winter of 1995, 15 wolves were reintroduced into the wilderness areas of central Idaho. These animals moved widely throughout central Idaho and behond. Many of these wolves moved north, some to the upper Bitterroot Valley. In 1996, three packs produced 11 pups.
In the winter of 1996, 17 wolves were captured near Fort St. Johns, British Columbia, Canada and were again released into acclimation pens in Yellowstone National Park through a "soft" release. Twenty wolves were released in central Idaho as a "hard" release."
http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/wolf/history.html (http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/wolf/history.html)
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 13, 2014, 08:45:13 PM
Where are the 68+ wolves that were released into Olympic NP in 2011?Exactly my point. They could have done this any time they chose. Why now. Why not when game was more plentiful and less people where in eastern Washington yet as soon as they BROUGHT them to Yellowstone they started showing up all over!
I think the ones coming from Idaho are the product of what was released there, not any mystery release in Washington. I think they've always come across the border with Canada, but until the government turned them loose elsewhere in the country no one gave them much of a second thought. They "didn't exist" so they got shot or people didn't believe their eyes.
Like you said not many mystery releases, here are a few real releases.
So my wife went home to reardan this weekend and her dad owns some land by hawk creek, just outside of Davenport and he witnessed the fish and game release 4 wolves onto his property 10 feet from his pasture where he has cows, he flipped and almost killed 6 people, the fish and game said they could release wolves on private property without getting permison, anyone out there know if they legally can do that?http://washington-hunters.com/wolf-disc … k.facebook
In May 2009 WDFW bought the rest of the Golden Doe ranch outside of Twisp WA, the first thing they did was releases wolves on it, and they were caught in the act. Their wolves killed a cow and a new calf right off the bat. A friend of mine put a trail camera on it right after it happened, we have pictures of WDFW inspecting the cow, it shows that the only damage on the cow is her hind-end is eaten. Funny thing is they failed to mention the new calf, when they ran to the papers and lied about what killed the cow, they some how forgot all about the new calf. http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pres (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pres) … estigators
Talked to a good buddy of mine and he informed me that a friend of his fathers was up in the Ellensburg area and noticed WDFW vehicle and trailer and was wondering what they were doing and started taking pictures as they released a pair of wolves. Later he contacted the WDFW and they denied everything until he told them he was going to the media and that changed there tune and they admitted they released a mating pair of wolves http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index) … 788.0.html
Here's another one: Was talking to a teacher yesterday at the meeting who and brought some students to watch the proceedings.
He was telling us about one of his buddies that works for one of the counties in SW Washington. That he was out plowing the road to clear snow off. And a bunch of WDFW employees would not let him continue up the road. He said that they had a horse trailer with kennels in the back. He said he had to threaten them with the cops before they would let him to continue to do his job. Sounds like you are right about transplanting wolves already on Mt. St. Helens.
My Veterinarian encountered a trucker outside of Spokane Washington at a rest area, Curiosity got the best of my Vet as his dog was very upset. So he talked with the trucker and he showed him his cargo, he had 68 crates on board, Some had 2 wolves, some had one wolf, all were destined to be released in the Olympic National Forest, that was in May of this year (2011).
The truck driver was interviewed and he said the wolves came out of the Yellowstone.
http://www.northwestwolfsightings.org/P (http://www.northwestwolfsightings.org/P) … #anchor_72
7-2012 Found out some first hand interesting info yesterday for those of us that live in Clark County WA. My husband and his buddy were out hiking in the Yacolt burn yesterday and they ran into a group of young guys and after talking a bit my husband had asked if they had seen any coyotes since that is what they were really after. The guy said yea my dad saw a "HUGE coyote his back stood about two and half three feet tall" He was talking about a wolf but didn't know at that point my hubby knows about the wolf issues. So my hubby said you mean a wolf? The guy says "Im calling them large coyotes since DFW wont admit they're here so when we shoot them we can say oh I thought they were coyotes and we didn't have them here yet" He went on to tell my husband that in the same place his friend came upon some fish and wildlife guys that had cages in the back of their truck. Just as he pulled up on them he counted about 8 wolves running into the brush. He asked what they were up to and there was a lot of Ummm's and stumbling over stories and they told him it was a research project. Then they got out of there fast. So needless to say they are only about 20 miles from my house now!
I talk to one of our Okanogan county commissioners about some of these releases a few years ago, and have heard of others since. The county commissioner told me of releases in the Methow which I hadn't heard about. And yet WDFW claim they are white as snow with no wolf releases, it is no wonder rural folks have no respect for WDFW.
Where is the photo of the release from you friends fathers friend in E'burg?
Where is the picture of the cow with "only the hind end eaten"... surely that's not the same old pic you always show???
You do not have a single piece of evidence. You do not have a single document, photo, employee testimony....nothing. You have no argument Wolfbate. It's nonsense.
Why can't you move on? Seriously? Come back with something new to show us. If this was a court case it would have been thrown out in the opening statements.
Post by: jasnt on June 14, 2014, 11:12:01 AM
Proof is in the eye of the beholder. Proof is not needed for something to be true,it is needed to convince others its true. Even if you where shown video of the releases you would say it's doctored or simply brush it aside as something else they where releasing. Washington is all about this so called reintroduction. I dont dout for a second that they wouldn't bring them in and release. If everyone believes they migrated in than wdfw doesn't have to accept blame. They won't have to answer to all the people that didn't want them. We never got a choice or a say in wolves being in Washington. Many of us didn't want them here. If these wolves were actually a native wolf I would be on the other side of the fence. These are not the native wolf and if there were any native wolves left im sure they are dead now. I think it's a little naive to say they were not any wolves released in Washington after we all know they were released in other states! Don't get me wrong im not a wolf hater. Im a predator hunter. I look forward to hunting these non native wolves!
Post by: hogsniper on June 14, 2014, 11:37:26 AM
Post by: jasnt on June 14, 2014, 12:13:39 PM
Post by: jasnt on June 14, 2014, 12:22:01 PM
Post by: hogsniper on June 14, 2014, 06:59:04 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 14, 2014, 10:00:14 PM
Where are the 68+ wolves that were released into Olympic NP in 2011?Exactly my point. They could have done this any time they chose. Why now. Why not when game was more plentiful and less people where in eastern Washington yet as soon as they BROUGHT them to Yellowstone they started showing up all over!
I think the ones coming from Idaho are the product of what was released there, not any mystery release in Washington. I think they've always come across the border with Canada, but until the government turned them loose elsewhere in the country no one gave them much of a second thought. They "didn't exist" so they got shot or people didn't believe their eyes.
Like you said not many mystery releases, here are a few real releases.
So my wife went home to reardan this weekend and her dad owns some land by hawk creek, just outside of Davenport and he witnessed the fish and game release 4 wolves onto his property 10 feet from his pasture where he has cows, he flipped and almost killed 6 people, the fish and game said they could release wolves on private property without getting permison, anyone out there know if they legally can do that?http://washington-hunters.com/wolf-disc … k.facebook
In May 2009 WDFW bought the rest of the Golden Doe ranch outside of Twisp WA, the first thing they did was releases wolves on it, and they were caught in the act. Their wolves killed a cow and a new calf right off the bat. A friend of mine put a trail camera on it right after it happened, we have pictures of WDFW inspecting the cow, it shows that the only damage on the cow is her hind-end is eaten. Funny thing is they failed to mention the new calf, when they ran to the papers and lied about what killed the cow, they some how forgot all about the new calf. http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pres (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pres) … estigators
Talked to a good buddy of mine and he informed me that a friend of his fathers was up in the Ellensburg area and noticed WDFW vehicle and trailer and was wondering what they were doing and started taking pictures as they released a pair of wolves. Later he contacted the WDFW and they denied everything until he told them he was going to the media and that changed there tune and they admitted they released a mating pair of wolves http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index) … 788.0.html
Here's another one: Was talking to a teacher yesterday at the meeting who and brought some students to watch the proceedings.
He was telling us about one of his buddies that works for one of the counties in SW Washington. That he was out plowing the road to clear snow off. And a bunch of WDFW employees would not let him continue up the road. He said that they had a horse trailer with kennels in the back. He said he had to threaten them with the cops before they would let him to continue to do his job. Sounds like you are right about transplanting wolves already on Mt. St. Helens.
My Veterinarian encountered a trucker outside of Spokane Washington at a rest area, Curiosity got the best of my Vet as his dog was very upset. So he talked with the trucker and he showed him his cargo, he had 68 crates on board, Some had 2 wolves, some had one wolf, all were destined to be released in the Olympic National Forest, that was in May of this year (2011).
The truck driver was interviewed and he said the wolves came out of the Yellowstone.
http://www.northwestwolfsightings.org/P (http://www.northwestwolfsightings.org/P) … #anchor_72
7-2012 Found out some first hand interesting info yesterday for those of us that live in Clark County WA. My husband and his buddy were out hiking in the Yacolt burn yesterday and they ran into a group of young guys and after talking a bit my husband had asked if they had seen any coyotes since that is what they were really after. The guy said yea my dad saw a "HUGE coyote his back stood about two and half three feet tall" He was talking about a wolf but didn't know at that point my hubby knows about the wolf issues. So my hubby said you mean a wolf? The guy says "Im calling them large coyotes since DFW wont admit they're here so when we shoot them we can say oh I thought they were coyotes and we didn't have them here yet" He went on to tell my husband that in the same place his friend came upon some fish and wildlife guys that had cages in the back of their truck. Just as he pulled up on them he counted about 8 wolves running into the brush. He asked what they were up to and there was a lot of Ummm's and stumbling over stories and they told him it was a research project. Then they got out of there fast. So needless to say they are only about 20 miles from my house now!
I talk to one of our Okanogan county commissioners about some of these releases a few years ago, and have heard of others since. The county commissioner told me of releases in the Methow which I hadn't heard about. And yet WDFW claim they are white as snow with no wolf releases, it is no wonder rural folks have no respect for WDFW.
Where is the photo of the release from you friends fathers friend in E'burg?
Where is the picture of the cow with "only the hind end eaten"... surely that's not the same old pic you always show???
You do not have a single piece of evidence. You do not have a single document, photo, employee testimony....nothing. You have no argument Wolfbate. It's nonsense.
Why can't you move on? Seriously? Come back with something new to show us. If this was a court case it would have been thrown out in the opening statements.
If WDFW hard released the wolves into the Olympic NP, the wolves have probably already made their way back home to Idaho etc.. Probably where WDFW gets their phrase "the wolves are just passing through, for once they aren't lying. Hard released wolves head for home unless they are fenced in. All though I have heard that if wolves are fed at the release site, sometimes they will stay. The USFWS discovered hard released wolves generally went back home in other wolf releases, that was the reason why the USFWS kept their Canadian wolves in fenced off kennels for months before releasing them into the Yellowstone.
You are correct, the info I have will not stand up in court, WDFW would just lie, same as they do when it is brought up in wolf meetings, lying about wolves is nothing new for WDFW. There are others who have more info than I would ever be able to obtain, info that would hold up in court., but I highly doubt WDFW will be interested in taking it to court.
Why can't I move on? I have moved on, we have had several discussions about wolves on W-H, in fact there are several topics going right now that you can trot off to. . WDFW releasing wolves is just another discussion that needs discussed. I know you and a few others disagree, but it is an important topic, in the future just like WA and OR, it will be a part of California's wolf history also. How did the wolves get in our state? Answer: They were released by your state game agency and the USFWS.
Of all the wolf issue discussed, why is it that the pro-wolfers on W-H, push back so strongly against the fact that WDFW have been caught released wolves in WA? Do they all work for WDFW?
Post by: timberfaller on June 15, 2014, 08:48:28 PM
Ya, inquiring minds would like to know! :dunno:
I am afraid it is the same "ideology" that you find in the "lead banning" issue. MOST don't know or care that USFWS was AGAINST(no scientific data supporting "lead poisoning" issue) going to "steel shot" in the beginning. Their data had dead birds with lead shot in them, but they didn't have ONE which could be proven to have died from lead poisoning. :yike: It wasn't until they forced the head guy into retirement(who refused to go with steel), did the get the agency to go steel.
And we all know "government" knows best!! :bash:
As far as "evidence" goes, YOU can have all you need in the world, BUT if you don't have a lawyer willing to pro bono the fight, forget it. Besides there are not to many lawyers out there with the "values" to do the right thing or fight for the right. YOU don't have to look every far to see what I mean, Just look at our Nation's Capital!!
Post by: idahohuntr on June 16, 2014, 10:06:32 AM
Of all the wolf issue discussed, why is it that the pro-wolfers on W-H, push back so strongly against the fact that WDFW have been caught released wolves in WA? Do they all work for WDFW?I don't know of any pro-wolfers on H-W...I am an avid hunter and supporter of state based management of wolves (as we do in Idaho), and I push back against these claims that wolves were transplanted in WA by WDFW or USFWS because there is no factual basis to those claims, not a shred of credible evidence to support them, and it makes hunters who mistakenly believe these lies look unintelligent when discussing controversial wolf management issues. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 16, 2014, 12:42:37 PM
+1. I'm not "pro wolf"... I'm a realist and understand that this issue is more complicated and political than it should be, and adding emotion and nonsensical claims about releases do nothing for wolf management.Of all the wolf issue discussed, why is it that the pro-wolfers on W-H, push back so strongly against the fact that WDFW have been caught released wolves in WA? Do they all work for WDFW?I don't know of any pro-wolfers on H-W...I am an avid hunter and supporter of state based management of wolves (as we do in Idaho), and I push back against these claims that wolves were transplanted in WA by WDFW or USFWS because there is no factual basis to those claims, not a shred of credible evidence to support them, and it makes hunters who mistakenly believe these lies look unintelligent when discussing controversial wolf management issues. :twocents:
I have an ID wolf tag, I will be hunting them the minute we can here in WA. I'm pro wolf management.
Post by: wolfbait on June 16, 2014, 03:17:41 PM
+1. I'm not "pro wolf"... I'm a realist and understand that this issue is more complicated and political than it should be, and adding emotion and nonsensical claims about releases do nothing for wolf management.Of all the wolf issue discussed, why is it that the pro-wolfers on W-H, push back so strongly against the fact that WDFW have been caught released wolves in WA? Do they all work for WDFW?I don't know of any pro-wolfers on H-W...I am an avid hunter and supporter of state based management of wolves (as we do in Idaho), and I push back against these claims that wolves were transplanted in WA by WDFW or USFWS because there is no factual basis to those claims, not a shred of credible evidence to support them, and it makes hunters who mistakenly believe these lies look unintelligent when discussing controversial wolf management issues. :twocents:
I have an ID wolf tag, I will be hunting them the minute we can here in WA. I'm pro wolf management.
Well that's so good to hear, I take it neither one of you work for WDFW then?
It's amazing how many unintelligent people their are in rural areas where wolves have shown up? I wonder if the two of you include people who have reported wolves and WDFW deny there are wolves in the area, and then they prove WDFW wrong, are these people unintelligent also? When WDFW claim wolves won't kill cows or refuse to confirm wolf killed cows, is everyone else considered unintelligent? WDFW came out with the worst wolf plan to date, are the people who appose the wolf plan unintelligent?
You both say you are for wolf management, look at the wolf management so far> WDFW refuse to confirm obvious wolf killed livestock, refuse to acknowledge the impact wolves are having on deer, elk, etc., refuse to acknowledge wolf sightings, refuse to confirm wolf packs unless forced to do so. WA won't delist until WDFW confirm 15 BP, who is in charge of confirming? Look at their management of predators that are not endangered, at this point looking at their past performance, WDFW pretty much suck.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2014, 07:30:10 AM
I do not work for the WDFW, but I do work on finding and reporting wolves whenever I can. I have been a part of the wolf program in a few ways, and am not 100% satisfied with things (WDFW effort, Wolf Plan, Wolf Conflict) . Again, we have to take the most meaningful actions to guide the decisions. To me, that means keeping close and making reasonable comments. I
If by "unintelligent" you mean irrational, ignorant, aggressive, and intolerant-then yes. I think there are a lot of those folks around. There are a lot of them in rural areas and they abound on this site. Wolves shouldn't get everyone so emotional. They're another piece of wildlife that should be managed as such.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 17, 2014, 08:00:31 AM
You don't know what the WDFW is doing because you have alienated yourself from them, and trashed on the local biologists so much that you'll never be able to have a relaxed, honest, conversation with them. You are always looking for a conspiracy. If you would relax and engage in some dialogue with the people at WDFW you might get a better understanding of the issues they are facing politically. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.:yeah: Well said.
I do not work for the WDFW, but I do work on finding and reporting wolves whenever I can. I have been a part of the wolf program in a few ways, and am not 100% satisfied with things (WDFW effort, Wolf Plan, Wolf Conflict) . Again, we have to take the most meaningful actions to guide the decisions. To me, that means keeping close and making reasonable comments. I
If by "unintelligent" you mean irrational, ignorant, aggressive, and intolerant-then yes. I think there are a lot of those folks around. There are a lot of them in rural areas and they abound on this site. Wolves shouldn't get everyone so emotional. They're another piece of wildlife that should be managed as such.
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2014, 08:17:00 AM
You don't know what the WDFW is doing because you have alienated yourself from them, and trashed on the local biologists so much that you'll never be able to have a relaxed, honest, conversation with them. You are always looking for a conspiracy. If you would relax and engage in some dialogue with the people at WDFW you might get a better understanding of the issues they are facing politically. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.
I do not work for the WDFW, but I do work on finding and reporting wolves whenever I can. I have been a part of the wolf program in a few ways, and am not 100% satisfied with things (WDFW effort, Wolf Plan, Wolf Conflict) . Again, we have to take the most meaningful actions to guide the decisions. To me, that means keeping close and making reasonable comments. I
If by "unintelligent" you mean irrational, ignorant, aggressive, and intolerant-then yes. I think there are a lot of those folks around. There are a lot of them in rural areas and they abound on this site. Wolves shouldn't get everyone so emotional. They're another piece of wildlife that should be managed as such.
Geeze WC do you read what you write or just throw it on and click post? WDFW don't care about what the ranchers, hunters or rural people think, they have proven this time and again with their BS lies, thats the reason they are such a joke. I think what you want is all attaboys for WDFW's wolf/predator management, you don't want any part of the truth, because the truth turns WDFW into baldfaced liars.
Just like the wolf that WDFW trapped in McFarland Cr a few weeks ago, most people know the real story, but yet WDFW run to the papers with a BS story that the wolves in McFarland cr are part of the lookout pack, and you want people to keep swallowing WDFW lies? You are looking at ignorance at full force from WDFW, but they don't care they have run with the lookout pack since 2008, it's a lie that has traveled for five years.
You can keep pushing the narrative that WDFW are doing the best they can, or they are honestly trying to manage wolves, but anyone who believes in WDFW ever managing wolves responsibly only have to look at the last five years, they have become the agency that is looked upon with disgust.
"If by "unintelligent" you mean irrational, ignorant, aggressive, and intolerant-then yes. I think there are a lot of those folks around. There are a lot of them in rural areas and they abound on this site. Wolves shouldn't get everyone so emotional. They're another piece of wildlife that should be managed as such."
You must mean the people who have to live with the wolves WDFW released on them and then lie about year after year.
If those darn rural people would just shut the hell up it would be smooth sailing for WDFW! You are a real winner, WC. I bet you are proud as punch. Remember one thing, all lies sooner or later come to light, just like the last 18 years of fraud and corruption of the original wolf introduction into the Yellowstone and Idaho.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2014, 08:49:03 AM
Believe it or not, the WDFW has to answer to more than you and your ilk... whoever that might be. YOU WILL NEVER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Please take a minute and re-read that a few times and think about what that means. The WDFW will never listen to you because you are the boy that has been crying wolf for half a decade and has not produced one single piece of useful information.
I will stand by with bated breath waiting for you to shed light on the fraud.... :rolleyes: Just like we all have been for 5 years now.... :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2014, 09:13:36 AM
I live in the middle of nowhere and have wolves close. Don't act like I'm some kind of neophyte to the rural lifestyle. The difference is, I don't light the torches and gather a mob of ignorant conspiracy theorists every time a WDFW truck goes by.
Believe it or not, the WDFW has to answer to more than you and your ilk... whoever that might be. YOU WILL NEVER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Please take a minute and re-read that a few times and think about what that means. The WDFW will never listen to you because you are the boy that has been crying wolf for half a decade and has not produced one single piece of useful information.
I will stand by with bated breath waiting for you to shed light on the fraud.... :rolleyes: Just like we all have been for 5 years now.... :tup:
Great come back WC, did you practice this time, or was it another plunk and post moment for you?
Cripe WDFW doesn't listen to anyone except DoW and CNW directed by the corrupt USFWS. If you think anyone actually thinks WDFW listens to hunters etc., then you are truly one of the few.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2014, 10:03:21 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 17, 2014, 10:49:59 AM
YOU WILL NEVER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Please take a minute and re-read that a few times and think about what that means. The WDFW will never listen to you because you are the boy that has been crying wolf for half a decade and has not produced one single piece of useful information.This is very sound advice for you wolfbait...Its unfortunate you choose to behave in a way that renders you useless and counterproductive to helping hunters in Washington State successfully manage wolves. If you dropped the alienation of wdfw and the crazy talk I suspect you could be much more helpful to the cause of ultimately de-listing wolves in this state. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2014, 12:05:29 PM
YOU WILL NEVER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Please take a minute and re-read that a few times and think about what that means. The WDFW will never listen to you because you are the boy that has been crying wolf for half a decade and has not produced one single piece of useful information.This is very sound advice for you wolfbait...Its unfortunate you choose to behave in a way that renders you useless and counterproductive to helping hunters in Washington State successfully manage wolves. If you dropped the alienation of wdfw and the crazy talk I suspect you could be much more helpful to the cause of ultimately de-listing wolves in this state. :twocents:
Really? Do you think if I told WDFW that there is a wolf pack denning in Alder cr. They would lope up there and confirm them. Evidently they think the wolves in McFarland cr are the Lookout pack, so the ones in Alder would be a brand new wolf pack. Do you think If I told them about the wolves with collars over in Salmon Cr/Buzzard LK they would run over there and confirm that pack also? I know the folks in the Okanogan would be shocked that WDFW are finally going check on those wolves, after all they have reported them numerous times.
I wonder what people will have to do to get WDFW to respond to their wolf problems, do you suppose they aren't saying please enough times?
Maybe we should get back on the subject of WDFW's wolf releases in WA? We don't seem to be going anywhere here, WC just gets all emotional> Calling rural people ignorant, and unintelligent doesn't do anyone any good, perhaps you could pull him off to the side and have a little chat with him? :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 17, 2014, 01:20:52 PM
No, because of your behavior I don't believe that they would run anywhere you reported wolves because you have lost your credibility...which is unfortunate.YOU WILL NEVER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Please take a minute and re-read that a few times and think about what that means. The WDFW will never listen to you because you are the boy that has been crying wolf for half a decade and has not produced one single piece of useful information.This is very sound advice for you wolfbait...Its unfortunate you choose to behave in a way that renders you useless and counterproductive to helping hunters in Washington State successfully manage wolves. If you dropped the alienation of wdfw and the crazy talk I suspect you could be much more helpful to the cause of ultimately de-listing wolves in this state. :twocents:
Really? Do you think if I told WDFW that there is a wolf pack denning in Alder cr. They would lope up there and confirm them. Evidently they think the wolves in McFarland cr are the Lookout pack, so the ones in Alder would be a brand new wolf pack. Do you think If I told them about the wolves with collars over in Salmon Cr/Buzzard LK they would run over there and confirm that pack also?
Maybe we should get back on the subject of WDFW's wolf releases in WA? We don't seem to be going anywhere here, WC just gets all emotional> Calling rural people ignorant, and unintelligent doesn't do anyone any good, perhaps you could pull him off to the side and have a little chat with him? :tup:WC did not call all rural people ignorant and unintelligent...he lives in a rural area...so don't go twisting that into something its not...and I concur, there are ignorant and intolerant people who live in rural areas...urban areas too...and these ignorant and intolerant people are why we have a difficult time making progress on managing wolves :tup:
Post by: wolfbait on June 17, 2014, 04:24:11 PM
No, because of your behavior I don't believe that they would run anywhere you reported wolves because you have lost your credibility...which is unfortunate.YOU WILL NEVER MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Please take a minute and re-read that a few times and think about what that means. The WDFW will never listen to you because you are the boy that has been crying wolf for half a decade and has not produced one single piece of useful information.This is very sound advice for you wolfbait...Its unfortunate you choose to behave in a way that renders you useless and counterproductive to helping hunters in Washington State successfully manage wolves. If you dropped the alienation of wdfw and the crazy talk I suspect you could be much more helpful to the cause of ultimately de-listing wolves in this state. :twocents:
Really? Do you think if I told WDFW that there is a wolf pack denning in Alder cr. They would lope up there and confirm them. Evidently they think the wolves in McFarland cr are the Lookout pack, so the ones in Alder would be a brand new wolf pack. Do you think If I told them about the wolves with collars over in Salmon Cr/Buzzard LK they would run over there and confirm that pack also?Maybe we should get back on the subject of WDFW's wolf releases in WA? We don't seem to be going anywhere here, WC just gets all emotional> Calling rural people ignorant, and unintelligent doesn't do anyone any good, perhaps you could pull him off to the side and have a little chat with him? :tup:WC did not call all rural people ignorant and unintelligent...he lives in a rural area...so don't go twisting that into something its not...and I concur, there are ignorant and intolerant people who live in rural areas...urban areas too...and these ignorant and intolerant people are why we have a difficult time making progress on managing wolves :tup:
I highly doubt WDFW do much running period, unless it's to try an save their ass running to the news paper with a new wolf lie.
If you look at WC's post above here is what he said: If by "unintelligent" you mean irrational, ignorant, aggressive, and intolerant-then yes. I think there are a lot of those folks around. There are a lot of them in rural areas and they abound on this site.