Post by: PA BEN on September 25, 2014, 02:41:13 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/documents/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-condems-wolf-management/ (http://www.spokesman.com/documents/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-condems-wolf-management/)
http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2014/09/2014_Stevens_Cty_declaring_WDFWs_Failure_to_Act.pdf (http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2014/09/2014_Stevens_Cty_declaring_WDFWs_Failure_to_Act.pdf)
Post by: mfswallace on September 25, 2014, 03:11:34 PM
a very slippery slope though.... :twocents:
Post by: washelkhunter on September 25, 2014, 03:15:13 PM
Post by: grundy53 on September 25, 2014, 03:37:04 PM
Post by: PA BEN on September 26, 2014, 05:27:53 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/)
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2014, 08:04:59 AM
Boy reading the comments is a real eye opener. It's the wolf above all else. :bash:
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/)
CNW, DoW, etc. flunkies pushing the pro-wolf agenda, same people in every publication.
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2014, 08:16:54 AM
http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2014/09/State_response_to_Stevens_County_advice_on_killing_wolves_9.10.14.pdf (http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2014/09/State_response_to_Stevens_County_advice_on_killing_wolves_9.10.14.pdf)
Director Anderson's remarks are complete and utter BS. I'm glad the commission leaked the letter to the Spokesman review so we all can have some further insight to the complete farce of WDFW's handling of wolves and conflict resolution. No one in their right mind would enter into a damage prevention cooperative agreement with WDFW, especially not after seeing how the sheep deal was done. WDFW takes money from the wolf groups (with strings attached) and proffers that to the ranchers (with more strings) and then expects the rancher to cost share for a bunch of crap that does nothing to prevent wolves from killing their livestock. Now the rancher is out of pocket even more money, isn't compensated fully for his losses AND has a bunch of people coming and going off their property, a bunch of papers to sign and bureaucracy to no end.
Stating that compensation somehow makes it unreasonable to defend your livestock from a wolf is BS!!
"compensation" is woefully short of compensating a livestock owner for their losses, it's a slap in the face to livestock owners.
Very disappointed with Anderson's response, but he is correct the county cannot preempt the state. What peeved me is how he paraded these ineffectual programs as if WDFW was doing something positive with wolf conflict and hiding behind court rulings that addressed Elk eating a hayfield...a far far cry from a pack of wolves attacking and eviscerating your livestock. Hay don't scream and cry and suffer or stampede through your fences.
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2014, 08:53:07 AM
Didn't think it was possible >:(
Post by: RG on September 26, 2014, 09:05:37 AM
When a state agency has come to the point that they have no credibility with the people they represent because of deception, inaction, lack if follow through, and obvious political bias which puts them at odds with sportsmen (as illustrated in the closed door steelhead deal with the wild fish guys), it's time for the residents of the state to stand up and demand to be heard. The biggest roadblock is the behavior starts in the governors office and the thread runs through Olympia.
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2014, 09:34:02 AM
WDFW's response
http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2014/09/State_response_to_Stevens_County_advice_on_killing_wolves_9.10.14.pdf (http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2014/09/State_response_to_Stevens_County_advice_on_killing_wolves_9.10.14.pdf)
Director Anderson's remarks are complete and utter BS. I'm glad the commission leaked the letter to the Spokesman review so we all can have some further insight to the complete farce of WDFW's handling of wolves and conflict resolution. No one in their right mind would enter into a damage prevention cooperative agreement with WDFW, especially not after seeing how the sheep deal was done. WDFW takes money from the wolf groups (with strings attached) and proffers that to the ranchers (with more strings) and then expects the rancher to cost share for a bunch of crap that does nothing to prevent wolves from killing their livestock. Now the rancher is out of pocket even more money, isn't compensated fully for his losses AND has a bunch of people coming and going off their property, a bunch of papers to sign and bureaucracy to no end.
Stating that compensation somehow makes it unreasonable to defend your livestock from a wolf is BS!!
"compensation" is woefully short of compensating a livestock owner for their losses, it's a slap in the face to livestock owners.
Very disappointed with Anderson's response, but he is correct the county cannot preempt the state. What peeved me is how he paraded these ineffectual programs as if WDFW was doing something positive with wolf conflict and hiding behind court rulings that addressed Elk eating a hayfield...a far far cry from a pack of wolves attacking and eviscerating your livestock. Hay don't scream and cry and suffer or stampede through your fences.
I think what WDFW mostly do anymore is manage damage control to their image, which is quickly deteriorating.
What most rural folks have/are realizing is, if they have wolf problems, take care of it themselves. WDFW is worthless when it comes to wolves and predation, they have no credibility, this has been proven time and again.
WDFW force honest people to break the law because their corrupt agency refuses to do their job. WDFW like the idea of ranchers etc. not coming to them for wolf problems, this way they are not forced to confirm wolf packs or BP's. It's a win, win deal for them and their partners, the USFWS and environmetnalists.
My guess is either CNW or DoW wrote the reply above and good ol Philip signed it.
Post by: RB on September 26, 2014, 09:58:50 AM
Boy reading the comments is a real eye opener. It's the wolf above all else. :bash:
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2014/sep/18/stevens-county-commission-condemns-state-wolf-management/)
Interesting how it appears like just one Jacknut on the thread is stirring up the whole thing. Unfortunately some will listen to crackpots like this and think it is correct because they saw it on the internet. The guy spews on about sheep and cattle being invasive species and not native and only the wolf should be in the woods HOGWASH!
CNW, DoW, etc. flunkies pushing the pro-wolf agenda, same people in every publication.
Post by: rim_runner on September 26, 2014, 10:00:45 AM
Quote
Stating that compensation somehow makes it unreasonable to defend your livestock from a wolf is BS!!you hit on something there that I see also but too few people seem to recognize. When someone raises livestock they are taking on a large responsibility to care for those animals. I would have little respect for a stockman whose response to his stock being kill was “oh well I’ll get compensated for it”. What stockmen are being asked to do is control their sense of responsibility and override years of learning and peer pressure. I do respect those who continue to obey the law but I can see that it is no easy matter. Personally I don’t see where allowing people to defend their livestock will hinder wolf recovery. For that matter I don’t think a hunting season on wolves is a bad idea either.
"compensation" is woefully short of compensating a livestock owner for their losses, it's a slap in the face to livestock owners.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 26, 2014, 10:05:11 AM
Post by: RG on September 26, 2014, 10:12:00 AM
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2014, 10:13:21 AM
QuoteStating that compensation somehow makes it unreasonable to defend your livestock from a wolf is BS!!you hit on something there that I see also but too few people seem to recognize. When someone raises livestock they are taking on a large responsibility to care for those animals. I would have little respect for a stockman whose response to his stock being kill was “oh well I’ll get compensated for it”. What stockmen are being asked to do is control their sense of responsibility and override years of learning and peer pressure. I do respect those who continue to obey the law but I can see that it is no easy matter. Personally I don’t see where allowing people to defend their livestock will hinder wolf recovery. For that matter I don’t think a hunting season on wolves is a bad idea either.
"compensation" is woefully short of compensating a livestock owner for their losses, it's a slap in the face to livestock owners.
You talk about emotional investment, and you're correct to varying degrees. There are livestock owners with strong ties to their livestock, as strong as family pet owners...but there are others with much less emotional investment as well. Impossible to quantify and purely case by case.
I'm also talking about financial compensation. The sheep grower is missing over 200 sheep, but is only eligible for something like 18 sheep for compensation; what about the 182 sheep lost? If you can't find the sheep you can't determine a wolf killed them. That is another aspect where compensation fails.
Another failure of compensation, and perhaps a bigger one is the a herd of cattle that is being pressured by wolves does not put on as much weight as a herd without consatant harrassment from wolves. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/mar/cows-witnessing-wolf-attacks-suffer-symptoms-similar-ptsd (http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/mar/cows-witnessing-wolf-attacks-suffer-symptoms-similar-ptsd)
Another aspect is unbred cattle, there's no compensation for all the calves that won't be born if your bull is run off never to be found again. (true story)
The livestock owner forks out a lot of extra time and gas money, hires more employees in wolf areas - again no compensation.
WDFW says "Oh a bear did that, Oh a cougar did that, Oh a coyote did that, Oh a killer Llama did that"....again no compensation.
The biggest losses is overall herd weight and calf loss and increased expenditure in time and resources but none of that is compensated.
"compensation" is a total farce that's used to give legal standing to WDFW to prevent livestock owners from reasonably defending their livestock from depredation from an endangered species. The court holds that it's NOT reasonable to defend your livestock if it's subject to compensation AND to top it all off the court case was precedent on Elk eating a hayfield :bash: :bash:
This needs challenged and defeated.
Post by: RG on September 26, 2014, 10:25:57 AM
Post by: PA BEN on September 27, 2014, 06:08:27 AM
Andersons reply seems genuine. It clearly acknowledges that self defense and defense of livestock is perfectly legal in E. Wa and that they may be giving a false sense of what is legal. He very correctly reminds the commissioners that they do not manage the wildlife...that responsibility belongs to the state, not individual municipalities within the state...Thank goodnness!!Yep, he said that, BUT, even the WDFW knows that there are too many bears and cougars out there, but because it went to the voters and passed into law, (RCW), their hands are tied and can not manage wildlife. IE; Baiting and hound hunting.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2014, 07:16:06 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on September 27, 2014, 07:26:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on September 27, 2014, 07:28:21 AM
The County Commissioners job is to represent the county and it's people, I think they are doing a really good job too. I commend them for doing all they can do to try and influence this wolf situation. If more eastside counties would get on board perhaps the legislature would take action.
The problem is that the state (which is mostly westside residents) want wolves but don't want to live with them as has been proven via Kretz's bill to transplant wolves to western WA which was opposed by westside legislators. The westside (generally speaking) think wolves belong in eastern Washington and it's really convenient since the westside doesn't have to live with them. They expect the eastside people to change our lives and suffer the financial losses of living with wolves.
Inaction by the westside will force eastside residents to react in the only fashion available. Not saying it's right, just saying what the options look like to more and more eastside residents. This whole wolf fiasco is not healthy for modern wildlife management.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2014, 08:00:58 AM
Post by: thatdamguy on September 29, 2014, 01:11:03 PM
QuoteStating that compensation somehow makes it unreasonable to defend your livestock from a wolf is BS!!you hit on something there that I see also but too few people seem to recognize. When someone raises livestock they are taking on a large responsibility to care for those animals. I would have little respect for a stockman whose response to his stock being kill was “oh well I’ll get compensated for it”. What stockmen are being asked to do is control their sense of responsibility and override years of learning and peer pressure. I do respect those who continue to obey the law but I can see that it is no easy matter. Personally I don’t see where allowing people to defend their livestock will hinder wolf recovery. For that matter I don’t think a hunting season on wolves is a bad idea either.
"compensation" is woefully short of compensating a livestock owner for their losses, it's a slap in the face to livestock owners.
You talk about emotional investment, and you're correct to varying degrees. There are livestock owners with strong ties to their livestock, as strong as family pet owners...but there are others with much less emotional investment as well. Impossible to quantify and purely case by case.
I'm also talking about financial compensation. The sheep grower is missing over 200 sheep, but is only eligible for something like 18 sheep for compensation; what about the 182 sheep lost? If you can't find the sheep you can't determine a wolf killed them. That is another aspect where compensation fails.
Another failure of compensation, and perhaps a bigger one is the a herd of cattle that is being pressured by wolves does not put on as much weight as a herd without consatant harrassment from wolves. http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/mar/cows-witnessing-wolf-attacks-suffer-symptoms-similar-ptsd (http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/mar/cows-witnessing-wolf-attacks-suffer-symptoms-similar-ptsd)
Another aspect is unbred cattle, there's no compensation for all the calves that won't be born if your bull is run off never to be found again. (true story)
The livestock owner forks out a lot of extra time and gas money, hires more employees in wolf areas - again no compensation.
WDFW says "Oh a bear did that, Oh a cougar did that, Oh a coyote did that, Oh a killer Llama did that"....again no compensation.
The biggest losses is overall herd weight and calf loss and increased expenditure in time and resources but none of that is compensated.
"compensation" is a total farce that's used to give legal standing to WDFW to prevent livestock owners from reasonably defending their livestock from depredation from an endangered species. The court holds that it's NOT reasonable to defend your livestock if it's subject to compensation AND to top it all off the court case was precedent on Elk eating a hayfield :bash: :bash:
This needs challenged and defeated.
:yeah:
Absolutely correct, also many Idaho and Montana ranchers have been discovering that the average weight of the born animals in wolf prone areas are less and again there is no compensation.
As Campmeat said Ferry county and other counties need to take similar action.
Post by: timberfaller on September 29, 2014, 01:28:09 PM
A little history lesson!
In the 1940's there were very few deer in the Methow Valley, had it not been for the "county" managing the Wildlife(that's what county's did before there was a Game Dept)YOU would have have seen the herds of the 60's and 70's.
It was a very sad day when they turned it over to the state!!
Maybe it high time to return CONTROL back to the Locals!!!!! Get Olympia out, so problems can get solved!!
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 01:38:02 PM
I think that whether or not Kretz's bill was seriously considered, wolves will indeed be moving into the West side of the state and have, in fact, already. The residents of King and Pierce Co.s will not forever be without the consequences of their actions in support of the outrageous WA wolf plan.
Hoof rot might be the thing that finally gets wolves delisted statewide and usher in an era of better wolf management.
My prediction is the wolves are going to have a heyday in the hoof rot areas and multiply like crazy, the Elk will run out and they'll devastate the deer, then on to domestics and people's pets.
Then we'll see a huge outcry and the tide will turn.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 29, 2014, 01:51:39 PM
"He very correctly reminds the commissioners that they do not manage the wildlife...that responsibility belongs to the state, not individual municipalities within the state...Thank goodnness!!":chuckle: You need a little history lesson there Timber...at no point were individual counties the managers of the States wildlife!
A little history lesson!
In the 1940's there were very few deer in the Methow Valley, had it not been for the "county" managing the Wildlife(that's what county's did before there was a Game Dept)YOU would have have seen the herds of the 60's and 70's.
It was a very sad day when they turned it over to the state!!
Maybe it high time to return CONTROL back to the Locals!!!!! Get Olympia out, so problems can get solved!!
March 1890 - The first Fish Commissioner was James Crawford, appointed by Governor Elisha Ferry
1891 - State Legislature appropriated funds for a salmon hatchery.
1895 - The first salmon hatchery was built and dedicated in 1895 on the Kalama River.
1915 - Legislature passed a new Game and Game-Fish Code that provided for a Chief Game Warden and a Fish Commissioner both managed under Chief Game Warden L. H. Darwin, Department of Fish and Game
1921 - Legislature abolished the Fish Commission and replaced it with a Department of Fisheries with a Division of Fisheries and a Division of Game and Game Fish.
1932 - An initiative separated food fish and game fish and created a Department of Fisheries (food fish) under an appointed Director and a Department of Game (game fish) under a six member commission.
1987 - Legislature changed Department of Game, with a Commission-appointed director, to Department of Wildlife with a Director appointed by the Governor.
1994 - Legislature merged Department of Wildlife and Department of Fisheries, creating Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). WDFW has a 9-member Commission and the WDFW Director is appointed by the Commission.
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 02:11:21 PM
I think that whether or not Kretz's bill was seriously considered, wolves will indeed be moving into the West side of the state and have, in fact, already. The residents of King and Pierce Co.s will not forever be without the consequences of their actions in support of the outrageous WA wolf plan.
Hoof rot might be the thing that finally gets wolves delisted statewide and usher in an era of better wolf management.
My prediction is the wolves are going to have a heyday in the hoof rot areas and multiply like crazy, the Elk will run out and they'll devastate the deer, then on to domestics and people's pets.
Then we'll see a huge outcry and the tide will turn.
Management in those areas is going to be tough with Weyerhaeuser making people pay $150.00 to play. That's a lot of land for wolves to live on with relatively little pressure.
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 02:13:01 PM
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
wolf management is tough anywhere, and in that deep timber good luck!
It will be a real headache for the state as it means having some rather tense conversations with private timber with regards to hunting access. In that regard wolves could be a good thing since it may force timber companies into opening the land up again. But if it doesn't, well, I think none of us have seen anything yet. How do you manage a predator that has vast tracts of land to live on? Land that a lot of people won't pay to hunt on or can't afford to? Land owned by a company that is relatively unaffected by wolves in those areas? :dunno:
I don't know what the count is now, but at the start of the season I heard that Weyerhaeuser had sold less than 2000 of their 15,000 permits for the St Helens tree farm. That number will plummet further if wolves go to town in there.
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 04:28:41 PM
If you're looking for a silver lining, access isn't it. There isn't any silver lining other than sick Elk will become dead Elk a little bit faster.
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 05:02:53 PM
WDFW can come and go off timber lands as they see fit, there's never been any issues with that. Timber corps love WDFW on their lands, free law enforcement to help drive out the riffraff.
If you're looking for a silver lining, access isn't it. There isn't any silver lining other than sick Elk will become dead Elk a little bit faster.
WDFW can, but hunters can not. Once wolves are on private timber land there is no managing them if it's locked up or made so expensive people won't hunt it.
The problem with hoof rot at the moment is no one knows what is causing it. If it's herbicides or pesticides that's one thing, if it's disease it's probably an indication that the herd needs to be culled a little more soas to keep the population more fit and able to deal with the coming threat better. A sick herd will die fast.
And I can tell you now that every guy I've talked to who hunts Roosevelt elk in that area has told me very few they saw did not have some sign of it.
Post by: AspenBud on September 29, 2014, 05:17:10 PM
It would be a preventative measure that would at least slow them down. Pup survival largely depends on how easy food is to attain, no need to make it any easier for them than necessary.
Post by: KFhunter on September 29, 2014, 07:05:14 PM
What's bad is the wolves will take care of the hoof rot problem and take the focus off finding the cause, so if it's timber companies spraying crap that's causing hoof rot then they'll be more than happy to have as many wolves as possible lest some hoof rotted Elk wander into town and rekindle interest in that problem.
They're probably looking at the wolves as their salvation from a possible future litigation for causing hoof rot.
So no, I don't suspect they'll want wolves managed.
Post by: idahohuntr on September 30, 2014, 08:50:56 PM
yup I'm talking about an epic wolf boom west of the cascade crest.Now i've heard it all...the wolves are going to save the timber companies from the lawsuits for causing hoof rot. I guess when you ignore the facts and logic, you can come up with these creative scenarios :chuckle:
What's bad is the wolves will take care of the hoof rot problem and take the focus off finding the cause, so if it's timber companies spraying crap that's causing hoof rot then they'll be more than happy to have as many wolves as possible lest some hoof rotted Elk wander into town and rekindle interest in that problem.
They're probably looking at the wolves as their salvation from a possible future litigation for causing hoof rot.
So no, I don't suspect they'll want wolves managed.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2014, 06:23:17 AM
yup I'm talking about an epic wolf boom west of the cascade crest.
What's bad is the wolves will take care of the hoof rot problem and take the focus off finding the cause, so if it's timber companies spraying crap that's causing hoof rot then they'll be more than happy to have as many wolves as possible lest some hoof rotted Elk wander into town and rekindle interest in that problem.
They're probably looking at the wolves as their salvation from a possible future litigation for causing hoof rot.
So no, I don't suspect they'll want wolves managed.
Timber companies definitely benefit from having wolves on their land. Ungulates eat trees, wolves eat ungulates. Pretty simple.
Post by: AspenBud on October 01, 2014, 07:37:51 AM
yup I'm talking about an epic wolf boom west of the cascade crest.
What's bad is the wolves will take care of the hoof rot problem and take the focus off finding the cause, so if it's timber companies spraying crap that's causing hoof rot then they'll be more than happy to have as many wolves as possible lest some hoof rotted Elk wander into town and rekindle interest in that problem.
They're probably looking at the wolves as their salvation from a possible future litigation for causing hoof rot.
So no, I don't suspect they'll want wolves managed.
Timber companies definitely benefit from having wolves on their land. Ungulates eat trees, wolves eat ungulates. Pretty simple.
I made that point a few months ago and I believe it to be true. Hunters solved a problem for them. With the wolf they don't have to worry about vandalism, hunting accidents, and crime. Just wait...
Post by: AspenBud on October 01, 2014, 07:44:32 AM
yup I'm talking about an epic wolf boom west of the cascade crest.Now i've heard it all...the wolves are going to save the timber companies from the lawsuits for causing hoof rot. I guess when you ignore the facts and logic, you can come up with these creative scenarios :chuckle:
What's bad is the wolves will take care of the hoof rot problem and take the focus off finding the cause, so if it's timber companies spraying crap that's causing hoof rot then they'll be more than happy to have as many wolves as possible lest some hoof rotted Elk wander into town and rekindle interest in that problem.
They're probably looking at the wolves as their salvation from a possible future litigation for causing hoof rot.
So no, I don't suspect they'll want wolves managed.
I don't know about saving them from lawsuits but wolves will allow them to charge high dollar access and keep out a lot of hunters. Historically they wanted hunters to keep ungulates in check. They won't need as many if wolves show up. Wolves are a win/win for big timber.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2014, 07:59:38 AM
yup I'm talking about an epic wolf boom west of the cascade crest.Now i've heard it all...the wolves are going to save the timber companies from the lawsuits for causing hoof rot. I guess when you ignore the facts and logic, you can come up with these creative scenarios :chuckle:
What's bad is the wolves will take care of the hoof rot problem and take the focus off finding the cause, so if it's timber companies spraying crap that's causing hoof rot then they'll be more than happy to have as many wolves as possible lest some hoof rotted Elk wander into town and rekindle interest in that problem.
They're probably looking at the wolves as their salvation from a possible future litigation for causing hoof rot.
So no, I don't suspect they'll want wolves managed.
You're condescending just for the sheer joy of it. He's made a valid point and you have zero facts, only insults to counter it. Your negative posts and constant insults take away from the positive things this forum does. Instead of crapping everywhere you go, why don't you find a place that's more suited to your views. This isn't it.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 08:24:36 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 01, 2014, 08:27:52 AM
:yeah: :yeah:
You're condescending just for the sheer joy of it. He's made a valid point and you have zero facts, only insults to counter it. Your negative posts and constant insults take away from the positive things this forum does. Instead of crapping everywhere you go, why don't you find a place that's more suited to your views. This isn't it.
Post by: bobcat on October 01, 2014, 08:31:29 AM
:yeah: ?
No differing opinions allowed on this board. We're nothing but sheep, right Pman? :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2014, 08:41:08 AM
So would we rather have every person simply post:
:yeah: ?
No differing opinions allowed on this board. We're nothing but sheep, right Pman? :dunno:
Yeah sure Bobcat. That's exactly what I meant (sarc). You know as well as I that the poster I was addressing is insulting and condescending, often without any reasonable debate or counterpoint. I have no problem with differing opinions. I have a problem with someone who constantly strives only to disrupt and insult.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 08:50:32 AM
That is an absurd claim. Please go re-read all of my posts on any of the herbicide threads where I have articulated why I believe it is a long, long stretch of the truth to suggest timber companies are at risk of a lawsuit for causing hoof rot...then to further suggest that wolves will solve the timber companies legal troubles? :tinfoil:So would we rather have every person simply post:
:yeah: ?
No differing opinions allowed on this board. We're nothing but sheep, right Pman? :dunno:
Yeah sure Bobcat. That's exactly what I meant (sarc). You know as well as I that the poster I was addressing is insulting and condescending, often without any reasonable debate or counterpoint. I have no problem with differing opinions. I have a problem with someone who constantly strives only to disrupt and insult.
It is not insulting or condescending to point out when someone says something rather absurd...but I can understand how life would be easier for you if folks weren't around to point out your failed reasoning. :twocents: Did most members in the thread you participated in not just remind acorn that one should have a thick skin to post in wolves, religion, politics threads? Weren't you part of the chorus of folks making condescending and snide remarks insulting acorn? :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2014, 09:58:31 AM
Chemicals in the forest making sick animals is a cause that just about every user group can rally against. A guy would have to have some pretty thick blinders on to not think the timber companies are sweating just a little bit under the current scrutiny; scrutiny that is refreshed every time a hoof rot story makes the media. A dozen Elk laying in a small field next to a highway starving to death is not a pretty sight.
Wolves can alleviate that problem, heck they'll probably be praised for making the herd "healthy, happy and stronger" just like the Disney wolves do.
.....meanwhile they breed and breed with the smorgasbord of easy to catch animals at their feet creating a wolf boom. Remember, they're booming over here with large and very healthy Elk - give them 10,000's of sickly Elk and blacktail to feast upon :yike:
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2014, 10:03:06 AM
I'd almost be giddy to see the West side reap what they've sewn over here on the East side...but I'm bigger than that 8)
Post by: AspenBud on October 01, 2014, 10:17:36 AM
Then add to that all the displaced lions coming into town
I'd almost be giddy to see the West side reap what they've sewn over here on the East side...but I'm bigger than that 8)
That could happen.
The great unknown is how wolves will fair west of the mountains. The vegetation, the weather, and terrain is different from just about anywhere wolves have occurred since reintroduction and there are far more people. Even the game is a little different. One constant has held true for wolves so far, the landscape has been similar everywhere they went. That ends west of the Cascades.
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2014, 10:24:22 AM
unless the wolves get pad rot :chuckle:
Post by: AspenBud on October 01, 2014, 10:35:22 AM
I think easy meat will overcome habitat, at least for a while.
unless the wolves get pad rot :chuckle:
True. But my point is some portions of the state complain about mountain lions more than others and some have more than others. That phenomenon may well turn out to be true of wolves as well. I don't know. :dunno:
When the issue of predators comes up there is usually one part of the state that is loudest, it's the same area that is loudest about wolves. Now either people are more predator crazed there or conditions are much more favorable to them than in others.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2014, 11:13:41 AM
Then add to that all the displaced lions coming into town
I'd almost be giddy to see the West side reap what they've sewn over here on the East side...but I'm bigger than that 8)
I'm actually looking forward to see the greenies have to actually face the consequences of their actions. I want to see their pets die. I want to see their children terrified and afraid to go outside, and I'd love nothing more than to see wolves walking down the streets of King and Pierce Co.s. I personally would have no problem facing down a wolf and actually think that the sick and limping elk of the Weyerhaeuser land will benefit. It probably won't be the biggest herd in the state anymore, but that's the way it goes. I know, other wet side hunters will scream, but this is what it'll take before they realize what they've done.
Post by: headshot5 on October 01, 2014, 11:21:22 AM
Quote
I know, other wet side hunters will scream, but this is what it'll take before they realize what they've done.
What have the other wet side hunters done? :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 11:50:56 AM
I stand by my hypothetical conjecture, it's a logical path to follow.I realize you are willing to stand behind this hypothetical notion of yours; what I see lacking is evidence for the bolded statement which would be critical to your whole scenario...or to make your scenario even remotely logical. A panel of independent scientific experts does not believe chemicals used by timber companies cause hoof rot. What evidence do you have to support your claim that these chemicals CAUSE hoof rot which has been missed by the entire panel of experts?
Chemicals in the forest making sick animals is a cause that just about every user group can rally against. A guy would have to have some pretty thick blinders on to not think the timber companies are sweating just a little bit under the current scrutiny; scrutiny that is refreshed every time a hoof rot story makes the media. A dozen Elk laying in a small field next to a highway starving to death is not a pretty sight.
Wolves can alleviate that problem, heck they'll probably be praised for making the herd "healthy, happy and stronger" just like the Disney wolves do.
.....meanwhile they breed and breed with the smorgasbord of easy to catch animals at their feet creating a wolf boom. Remember, they're booming over here with large and very healthy Elk - give them 10,000's of sickly Elk and blacktail to feast upon :yike:
Anyways, its good to see that you support restrictions of private property owners that could possibly benefit the public at large. I'm sure President Obama has appointed an EPA administrator who can craft some much stronger federal regulations to restrict the various activities of private land owners in the interest of the public. :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2014, 12:18:19 PM
I stand by my hypothetical conjecture, it's a logical path to follow.I realize you are willing to stand behind this hypothetical notion of yours; what I see lacking is evidence for the bolded statement which would be critical to your whole scenario...or to make your scenario even remotely logical. A panel of independent scientific experts does not believe chemicals used by timber companies cause hoof rot. What evidence do you have to support your claim that these chemicals CAUSE hoof rot which has been missed by the entire panel of experts?
Chemicals in the forest making sick animals is a cause that just about every user group can rally against. A guy would have to have some pretty thick blinders on to not think the timber companies are sweating just a little bit under the current scrutiny; scrutiny that is refreshed every time a hoof rot story makes the media. A dozen Elk laying in a small field next to a highway starving to death is not a pretty sight.
Wolves can alleviate that problem, heck they'll probably be praised for making the herd "healthy, happy and stronger" just like the Disney wolves do.
.....meanwhile they breed and breed with the smorgasbord of easy to catch animals at their feet creating a wolf boom. Remember, they're booming over here with large and very healthy Elk - give them 10,000's of sickly Elk and blacktail to feast upon :yike:
Anyways, its good to see that you support restrictions of private property owners that could possibly benefit the public at large. I'm sure President Obama has appointed an EPA administrator who can craft some much stronger federal regulations to restrict the various activities of private land owners in the interest of the public. :tup:
You're putting words in my mouth.
I never directly said "timber companies cause hoof rot by spraying".
Quote
cause
kôz/Submit
noun
1.
a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear"
synonyms: source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point; More
antonyms: effect, result
reasonable grounds for doing, thinking, or feeling something.
"Faye's condition had given no cause for concern"
synonyms: reason, grounds, justification, call, need, necessity, occasion; More
2.
a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate.
"she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people"
synonyms: principle, ideal, belief, conviction; More
3.
a matter to be resolved in a court of law.
an individual's case offered at law.
synonyms: case, suit, lawsuit, action, dispute
"he went to plead his cause"
verb
verb: cause; 3rd person present: causes; past tense: caused; past participle: caused; gerund or present participle: causing
1.
make (something, typically something bad) happen.
"this disease can cause blindness"
synonyms: bring about, give rise to, lead to, result in, create, produce, generate, engender, spawn, bring on, precipitate, prompt, provoke, trigger, make happen, induce, inspire, promote, foster; More
When I wrote "cause" I meant meaning #2 - a movement or ideal that rally's people to a "cause". In this case it's fighting against the timber companies for spraying crap in the forests, regardless if it actually does any harm or not. Timber companies would not like this obviously, and the wolves could alleviate this by removing the sick animals.
Spotted Owl's was another "cause" the timber companies didn't like so much.
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that wolves could boom on the west side consuming an easy prey source.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 01, 2014, 12:49:06 PM
I'm not sure how wolves will respond on the west side...as Aspen mentioned, its somewhat uncharted territory. There are plenty of areas in Idaho...and MT, WY for that matter...where wolves just don't occupy habitat that seems like they should be everywhere. :dunno:
Post by: KFhunter on October 01, 2014, 12:56:24 PM
For the habitat question, like I've said easy to catch hoof rotted Elk very well might overcome slightly unsuitable habitat, if indeed that's the case.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 01, 2014, 01:57:03 PM
Post by: Special T on October 01, 2014, 02:55:42 PM
Then add to that all the displaced lions coming into town
I'd almost be giddy to see the West side reap what they've sewn over here on the East side...but I'm bigger than that 8)
I'm actually looking forward to see the greenies have to actually face the consequences of their actions. I want to see their pets die. I want to see their children terrified and afraid to go outside, and I'd love nothing more than to see wolves walking down the streets of King and Pierce Co.s. I personally would have no problem facing down a wolf and actually think that the sick and limping elk of the Weyerhaeuser land will benefit. It probably won't be the biggest herd in the state anymore, but that's the way it goes. I know, other wet side hunters will scream, but this is what it'll take before they realize what they've done.
While i really dont want anyones kids hurt I do think it would be much better for those voting in some of these assine rules to be directly affected. I also think Seattle vacinity would become SAFER if wolves were around. The pan handlers and bums would need to seek shelter instead of camping out on the sidewalk and underpasses.
Post by: AspenBud on October 02, 2014, 07:25:17 AM
Then add to that all the displaced lions coming into town
I'd almost be giddy to see the West side reap what they've sewn over here on the East side...but I'm bigger than that 8)
I'm actually looking forward to see the greenies have to actually face the consequences of their actions. I want to see their pets die. I want to see their children terrified and afraid to go outside, and I'd love nothing more than to see wolves walking down the streets of King and Pierce Co.s. I personally would have no problem facing down a wolf and actually think that the sick and limping elk of the Weyerhaeuser land will benefit. It probably won't be the biggest herd in the state anymore, but that's the way it goes. I know, other wet side hunters will scream, but this is what it'll take before they realize what they've done.
While i really dont want anyones kids hurt I do think it would be much better for those voting in some of these assine rules to be directly affected. I also think Seattle vacinity would become SAFER if wolves were around. The pan handlers and bums would need to seek shelter instead of camping out on the sidewalk and underpasses.
Peoples' reactions won't be a lot different than how they react to cougars and bears. They'll call the state, maybe, and still sleep at night. You got a glimpse of it when the gentleman was attacked by a bear near Longview. The state was ready to kill the bear and he asked them not to...and the guy is a hunter. Rational people will remember that pets and people have been getting attacked by cougars, bear, and coyotes for some time now west of the mountains. Wolves will just be more of the same.
Having said that, it's like I said yesterday, wolves haven't occupied an area like west of the mountains in the lower 48. No one knows what will happen. But one thing is for sure, they won't blend into cities like coyotes and there are a lot more cars, dogs, and people with guns. They won't be in paradise anymore.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 02, 2014, 07:57:08 AM
Post by: wolfbait on October 02, 2014, 08:26:52 AM
Aspen, I completely disagree with your comparison of these predators. Wolves are completely different. They hunt in packs. Bears and cougars are mainly solitary. Coyotes are not only a fraction of the wolves' size, they have a much less developed ability to organize their attack they way that wolves do. In addition, as we've seen, wolves seem to kill not only for food, but for the sport of it. When the wetside residents start seeing for themselves the way these eaters hunt and kill, their reaction to it will be far different than how they react to the other predators.
I haven't met anyone yet who likes the wolves for the way they kill, and the way they waste. I remember when WDFW came out with the lie of first wolf pack in seventy years, and then a year later when so many people thought they were pro-wolf and expressed their views which had been taught to them by the USFWS, WDFW, and environmentalist. Now the percentage of pro-wolf people have declined significantly, those of us who have had wolves shoved on us and told to deal with it are educating those who had/have no idea of what wolves really do. The lies of the environmentalists, USFWS and state game agencies have been exposed, 18 plus years of lies.
When WDFW finally have to start confirming wolves on the west side because of livestock predation, just like on the east side there will be many wolves and like the east side wolf problems will escalate, WDFW will come out with "wolves are expanding faster then we anticipated".
People who are not tied into the wolf agenda, and look through there own eyes with honesty want wolf control, predator control.
Post by: KFhunter on October 02, 2014, 08:46:26 AM
Post by: AspenBud on October 02, 2014, 09:29:19 AM
Aspen, I completely disagree with your comparison of these predators. Wolves are completely different. They hunt in packs. Bears and cougars are mainly solitary. Coyotes are not only a fraction of the wolves' size, they have a much less developed ability to organize their attack they way that wolves do. In addition, as we've seen, wolves seem to kill not only for food, but for the sport of it. When the wetside residents start seeing for themselves the way these eaters hunt and kill, their reaction to it will be far different than how they react to the other predators.
It's not a comparison, it's a statement of fact. People have been attacked and have had pets and livestock killed by all of those for years west of the mountains. The concept is not new and most sane people don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Remember when the Columbian ran an article a couple years ago about mountain lions wandering the green belts around Salmon Creek? People didn't exactly come out with pitchforks.
If a pack of wolves wanders into downtown Seattle what do you think is going to happen? I'll tell you what, people will pick up a phone and the state will remove them just like they do with all of the aforementioned predators.
The people west of the mountains who will have something to be concerned about and be most affected will be the same ones who do east of them. Livestock owners, hunters, and possibly hikers. The wolf hugger wandering downtown Seattle isn't going to be all that affected.
And dead is dead, the how doesn't really matter to a lot of people.
When and if wolves hit here, it will be the novelty of it that will cause it to make news. This is predator country regardless of which side of the mountains you live on. People who don't grasp that need to get their heads screwed on tight.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 02, 2014, 09:50:19 AM
Aspen, I completely disagree with your comparison of these predators. Wolves are completely different. They hunt in packs. Bears and cougars are mainly solitary. Coyotes are not only a fraction of the wolves' size, they have a much less developed ability to organize their attack they way that wolves do. In addition, as we've seen, wolves seem to kill not only for food, but for the sport of it. When the wetside residents start seeing for themselves the way these eaters hunt and kill, their reaction to it will be far different than how they react to the other predators.
It's not a comparison, it's a statement of fact. People have been attacked and have had pets and livestock killed by all of those for years west of the mountains. The concept is not new and most sane people don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Remember when the Columbian ran an article a couple years ago about mountain lions wandering the green belts around Salmon Creek? People didn't exactly come out with pitchforks.
If a pack of wolves wanders into downtown Seattle what do you think is going to happen? I'll tell you what, people will pick up a phone and the state will remove them just like they do with all of the aforementioned predators.
The people west of the mountains who will have something to be concerned about and be most affected will be the same ones who do east of them. Livestock owners, hunters, and possibly hikers. The wolf hugger wandering downtown Seattle isn't going to be all that affected.
And dead is dead, the how doesn't really matter to a lot of people.
When and if wolves hit here, it will be the novelty of it that will cause it to make news. This is predator country regardless of which side of the mountains you live on. People who don't grasp that need to get their heads screwed on tight.
They've never lived with wolves and if packs get thick on this side due to the increased amount of slow and domestic food available, they'll take notice. This isn't anything like bear or cougar attacks. There's a reason that we hunted wolves to near extinction and not bears and cougars. For someone who seems to know so much about them, I'm surprised you see no differences between them. At any rate, if and when they start populating over here, I'll welcome it for no other reason than the reality check it'll bring to the voting masses.
Post by: AspenBud on October 02, 2014, 10:05:59 AM
Aspen, I completely disagree with your comparison of these predators. Wolves are completely different. They hunt in packs. Bears and cougars are mainly solitary. Coyotes are not only a fraction of the wolves' size, they have a much less developed ability to organize their attack they way that wolves do. In addition, as we've seen, wolves seem to kill not only for food, but for the sport of it. When the wetside residents start seeing for themselves the way these eaters hunt and kill, their reaction to it will be far different than how they react to the other predators.
It's not a comparison, it's a statement of fact. People have been attacked and have had pets and livestock killed by all of those for years west of the mountains. The concept is not new and most sane people don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Remember when the Columbian ran an article a couple years ago about mountain lions wandering the green belts around Salmon Creek? People didn't exactly come out with pitchforks.
If a pack of wolves wanders into downtown Seattle what do you think is going to happen? I'll tell you what, people will pick up a phone and the state will remove them just like they do with all of the aforementioned predators.
The people west of the mountains who will have something to be concerned about and be most affected will be the same ones who do east of them. Livestock owners, hunters, and possibly hikers. The wolf hugger wandering downtown Seattle isn't going to be all that affected.
And dead is dead, the how doesn't really matter to a lot of people.
When and if wolves hit here, it will be the novelty of it that will cause it to make news. This is predator country regardless of which side of the mountains you live on. People who don't grasp that need to get their heads screwed on tight.
They've never lived with wolves and if packs get thick on this side due to the increased amount of slow and domestic food available, they'll take notice. This isn't anything like bear or cougar attacks. There's a reason that we hunted wolves to near extinction and not bears and cougars. For someone who seems to know so much about them, I'm surprised you see no differences between them. At any rate, if and when they start populating over here, I'll welcome it for no other reason than the reality check it'll bring to the voting masses.
I see a difference, just not in peoples' reactions.
Once they start being documented as being here I doubt protections on them will last long. There's lot of room for wolves to hide on the eastside, but outside of timber land that won't be the case here. A lot of folks will shoot them legal or not, many will be hit by cars, parvo will take out its share thanks to all the dogs running around, and WDFW will remove many others.
People and wolves don't mix in Stevens and Okanogan counties, but there is nobody there. Here wolves walk into a hornet's nest full of hazards.
I might eat my words, but I think wolves will have a tougher go of it here. But again, no one knows. To date they have only occurred in lightly populated areas and the weather, cover, and terrain has all been similar. Things change here for them.