Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2015, 04:11:24 PM
http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1676&year=2015 (http://app.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1676&year=2015)
HOUSE BILL 1676
State of Washington 64th Legislature 2015 Regular Session
By Representatives Short, Lytton, Kretz, and Blake
AN ACT Relating to understanding the effects of predation on wild
1ungulate populations; creating a new section; and providing an
2expiration date.
3BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The department of fish and wildlife
5must conduct a scientific, peer-reviewed study assessing the health
6of Washington's wild ungulate population in game management units
7that have experienced a change in predator population dynamics due to
8the recovery of gray wolves. The goal of the study must be to examine
9ungulate population trends in various game management units, using
10historic and current data, to assess whether or not Washington's wild
11ungulate population is adequate to support the change in predatory
12pressure resulting from gray wolf recovery.
13(2) In conducting the study, the department of fish and wildlife
14must, at a minimum:
15(a) Compare ungulate population trends in game management units
16where gray wolves are not currently present with ungulate population
17trends in game management units supporting gray wolf populations;
18(b) Consider all predation pressure on wild ungulates and the
19composition of predator species populations in various game
20management units, not just the predation caused by gray wolves; and
21
p. 1 HB 1676
(c) Include in the scope of the study the traditional off-
1reservation hunting grounds of the Colville confederated tribes,
2commonly known as the North Half.
3(3) The study required by this section must be submitted to
4independent peer review by qualified professionals who do not have a
5financial relationship with the department of fish and wildlife or
6any other conflicts of interest. As part of the peer review process,
7the department of fish and wildlife must solicit review from the
8appropriate game management agencies in the states of Idaho and
9Montana and the Canadian province of British Columbia.
10(4) The results of the study required under this section must be
11presented to the legislature by the department of fish and wildlife,
12consistent with RCW 43.01.036, by October 31, 2016. In addition to
13the results of the study, the department of fish and wildlife must
14also present any proposed changes to ungulate or predator population
15management informed by the results of the study to maximize stability
16in wild ungulate populations and to minimize predation on domestic
17ungulate species such as cows, sheep, goats, and horses.
18(5) This section expires July 1, 2017.
19
--- END ---
Post by: pd on January 29, 2015, 04:34:58 PM
It is a good thing that Chairman Blake has signed on to this.
(Just a quibble, but in Section 4 I wish the staff attorneys would learn the difference between 'cows' and 'cattle.')
Post by: Ridgeratt on January 29, 2015, 04:38:12 PM
But I think I would have a better chance of getting struck by Lightning than this getting through committee and will die on the floor. As other topics have shown most of the folks in this forum on the west side think it is just our problem and if it doesn't effect them personally they could care less!!
:twocents:
Post by: sakoshooter on January 29, 2015, 06:39:27 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on February 26, 2015, 11:46:25 PM
Post by: mfswallace on February 27, 2015, 07:40:15 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 27, 2015, 07:57:40 AM
Post by: mfswallace on February 27, 2015, 08:09:44 AM
I'd support the bill but would also like to see verbiage that calls for analysis of how the predator impacts on ungulate populations may affect hunter tag distribution and harvest goals going forward.
And if the state were smart they would use that info to project( best possible) revenue losses. Not only from tags and licenses' but try and factor in economics from things like gas, Pittman Robertson act taxes collected(look at increase in sales starting in August -November), lodging .....etc
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 27, 2015, 08:17:56 AM
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 27, 2015, 08:37:04 AM
I'd bet Sitka_blacktail and Aspenbud are the No's :hello:
:chuckle:
Post by: wolfbait on February 27, 2015, 08:42:39 AM
What's not to like? We have taxes (and license fees) to fund such studies. Let's see the scientific evidence, and also see what the game departments of the neighboring states/provinces also have to say. Shine a bright light on the evidence, and reach a conclusion, and be public about the result.
It is a good thing that Chairman Blake has signed on to this.
(Just a quibble, but in Section 4 I wish the staff attorneys would learn the difference between 'cows' and 'cattle.')
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2015, 08:51:42 AM
Post by: Jarhead Chase on February 27, 2015, 09:08:14 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on February 27, 2015, 09:10:57 AM
Post by: mfswallace on February 27, 2015, 10:19:29 AM
Politicians make poor scientists and wildlife managers. This bill does nothing to help manage wildlife and wastes resources and staff time. It is very poorly written and will not result in anything useful or beneficial for predator management or deer and elk management. Maybe it serves as a way to bring about more public dialogue about balancing predator populations and ungulate populations, which is great, as long as it does not pass and waste more money.
Another no voter, surprise surprise. :chuckle: :chuckle:
While politicians might make poor scientists the same could be said of pro-wolf supporters as well as wdfw who are more aligned with pro-wolf groups than an independent state agency should be
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 27, 2015, 10:26:10 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2015, 10:50:48 AM
Wolf stuff will always be poilitcal of course...but when politicians go beyond debating and legislating public policy and start writing bills directing how research is to be conducted... :bash:Politicians make poor scientists and wildlife managers. This bill does nothing to help manage wildlife and wastes resources and staff time. It is very poorly written and will not result in anything useful or beneficial for predator management or deer and elk management. Maybe it serves as a way to bring about more public dialogue about balancing predator populations and ungulate populations, which is great, as long as it does not pass and waste more money.
Another no voter, surprise surprise. :chuckle: :chuckle:
While politicians might make poor scientists the same could be said of pro-wolf supporters as well as wdfw who are more aligned with pro-wolf groups than an independent state agency should be
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 27, 2015, 11:06:49 AM
Post by: mfswallace on February 27, 2015, 11:18:26 AM
Wolf stuff will always be poilitcal of course...but when politicians go beyond debating and legislating public policy and start writing bills directing how research is to be conducted... :bash:Politicians make poor scientists and wildlife managers. This bill does nothing to help manage wildlife and wastes resources and staff time. It is very poorly written and will not result in anything useful or beneficial for predator management or deer and elk management. Maybe it serves as a way to bring about more public dialogue about balancing predator populations and ungulate populations, which is great, as long as it does not pass and waste more money.
Another no voter, surprise surprise. :chuckle: :chuckle:
While politicians might make poor scientists the same could be said of pro-wolf supporters as well as wdfw who are more aligned with pro-wolf groups than an independent state agency should be
This says nothing about how the research must be accomplished but does outline what specific data must be sought since it wasn't done when wolves were transplanted... Why is having this kind of data a bad thing, except it will glaringly show the true impact wolves have on decimating ungulates in the areas they inhabit until they move to the next area.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2015, 05:45:02 PM
Why do you need to conduct "research" if you already know the answer and will refuse to accept any evaluation that could possibly tell you something different? Why do we need to waste tax and license dollars on something so stupid? I would rather watch legislators burn $100 bills in a wheelbarrow on the steps of the capitol than have some stupid politicized bill like this pass which will result in WDFW doing as objective a report as possible...then the screeching anti wolf zealots will cry and whine because there will be some moderation to the report that highlights the numerous factors which influence ungulate populations...and that screeching will be followed by the screeching greenie pro wolf zealots who will cry and snivel because the report suggests some need for wolf management including lethal take to manage ungulates and minimize conflicts. Then the media will run stories quoting the loudest, least informed and most annoying of the opposite camps about what the report means...which will further politicize the whole dang thing and next thing you know we will have bills coming from the other side of the legislature demanding wdfw study how the wolves will bring all the beavers back...and the cycle continues :bash: :bash:Wolf stuff will always be poilitcal of course...but when politicians go beyond debating and legislating public policy and start writing bills directing how research is to be conducted... :bash:Politicians make poor scientists and wildlife managers. This bill does nothing to help manage wildlife and wastes resources and staff time. It is very poorly written and will not result in anything useful or beneficial for predator management or deer and elk management. Maybe it serves as a way to bring about more public dialogue about balancing predator populations and ungulate populations, which is great, as long as it does not pass and waste more money.
Another no voter, surprise surprise. :chuckle: :chuckle:
While politicians might make poor scientists the same could be said of pro-wolf supporters as well as wdfw who are more aligned with pro-wolf groups than an independent state agency should be
This says nothing about how the research must be accomplished but does outline what specific data must be sought since it wasn't done when wolves were transplanted... Why is having this kind of data a bad thing, except it will glaringly show the true impact wolves have on decimating ungulates in the areas they inhabit until they move to the next area.
Post by: huntrights on February 27, 2015, 06:25:16 PM
This is a great bill. Passed House Agriculture and Natural Resources committee unanimously 12-0. The bill was amended in the House General Government and Information Technology Committee, in which it was improved, and passed that committee unanimously 7-0. This bill has a great chance of passing the House and it it makes it through the House, it will fly through the Senate.
:yeah:
This bill needs to pass. There may be some nay-Sayers in this forum, but pursuing sound and unbiased science is the goal; to accept anything less can result in bad wolf management. We need to properly manage wolf populations to avoid negative effects on ungulate populations, livestock, domestic animals, and rural human settlements. The only way to do this is by sound and unbiased science that will be peer reviewed. Please make sure you read the bill and understand the overall goal.
This is a good bill.
Post by: mfswallace on February 27, 2015, 08:40:42 PM
Why do you need to conduct "research" if you already know the answer and will refuse to accept any evaluation that could possibly tell you something different? Why do we need to waste tax and license dollars on something so stupid? I would rather watch legislators burn $100 bills in a wheelbarrow on the steps of the capitol than have some stupid politicized bill like this pass which will result in WDFW doing as objective a report as possible...then the screeching anti wolf zealots will cry and whine because there will be some moderation to the report that highlights the numerous factors which influence ungulate populations...and that screeching will be followed by the screeching greenie pro wolf zealots who will cry and snivel because the report suggests some need for wolf management including lethal take to manage ungulates and minimize conflicts. Then the media will run stories quoting the loudest, least informed and most annoying of the opposite camps about what the report means...which will further politicize the whole dang thing and next thing you know we will have bills coming from the other side of the legislature demanding wdfw study how the wolves will bring all the beavers back...and the cycle continues :bash: :bash:Wolf stuff will always be poilitcal of course...but when politicians go beyond debating and legislating public policy and start writing bills directing how research is to be conducted... :bash:Politicians make poor scientists and wildlife managers. This bill does nothing to help manage wildlife and wastes resources and staff time. It is very poorly written and will not result in anything useful or beneficial for predator management or deer and elk management. Maybe it serves as a way to bring about more public dialogue about balancing predator populations and ungulate populations, which is great, as long as it does not pass and waste more money.
Another no voter, surprise surprise. :chuckle: :chuckle:
While politicians might make poor scientists the same could be said of pro-wolf supporters as well as wdfw who are more aligned with pro-wolf groups than an independent state agency should be
This says nothing about how the research must be accomplished but does outline what specific data must be sought since it wasn't done when wolves were transplanted... Why is having this kind of data a bad thing, except it will glaringly show the true impact wolves have on decimating ungulates in the areas they inhabit until they move to the next area.
Pot meet kettle :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on February 27, 2015, 08:50:36 PM
My question is does the bill provide a way to fund all the studies that it is requiring? It sounds to me like this is a very expensive proposition. It would undoubtedly require the WDFW to hire many more employees.
Wolves eat deer and elk. What more do we need to know? Why study it?
Post by: mfswallace on February 27, 2015, 09:02:26 PM
I didn't read this bill and know nothing about it other than what I read in the comments here.
My question is does the bill provide a way to fund all the studies that it is requiring? It sounds to me like this is a very expensive proposition. It would undoubtedly require the WDFW to hire many more employees.
Wolves eat deer and elk. What more do we need to know? Why study it?
Maybe they could use money from the wolf fund since it seems to be endless.... Or I don't know maybe instead of the feds trying to introduce another ungulate killer they could use those millions of dollars...
Post by: dreamunelk on February 27, 2015, 09:17:26 PM
My bet is none of you will like the results. So might as well start whining now....
Too many caveats. There is far more peer reviewed science on this subject then many of you realize. Forcing the WDFW to do this study could really hurt the big picture.
What many need to do is actually read the wolf plan and then support it but, fight for more aggressive management. Push for biology over politics and feelings. You will find out that taking this route will end up in better results. Not doing so will give the wolf zealots all they need to tie up things in court and win. Guess who always looses in this battle.
For those of you who chose to research remember to put your feelings aside and try an understand the biology. It is hard, but in time you will find that the biology is the correct route as it is the only way the hunters will come out ahead.
Take a look at the court cases. Start supporting based on biology and we can win. Keep up with the local arrogance and we will lose. Look at what happened in other States when every one acted on feelings. All sides! Population goals where reached and then they continues to grow because everyone chose one side or the other. Find the middle ground and support it. Much easier for WDFW to get aggressive with wolves when needed if they have some support.
I son't think will help us in the long run.
Just my :twocents:
Ask what is best for the ecosystem as whole. Not what is best to fill my tag.
Post by: mfswallace on February 27, 2015, 09:23:12 PM
To short of time to do a peer reviewed study. Maybe an assessment or literature review?
My bet is none of you will like the results. So might as well start whining now....
Too many caveats. There is far more peer reviewed science on this subject then many of you realize. Forcing the WDFW to do this study could really hurt the big picture.
What many need to do is actually read the wolf plan and then support it but, fight for more aggressive management. Push for biology over politics and feelings. You will find out that taking this route will end up in better results. Not doing so will give the wolf zealots to tie up things in court. Guess who always looses in this battle.
For those of you who chose to research remember to put your feelings aside and try an understand the biology. It is hard, but in time you will find that the biology is the correct route as it is the only way the hunters will come out ahead.
Take a look at the court cases. Start supporting based on biology and we can win. Keep up with the local arrogance and we will lose. Look at what happened in other States when every one acted on feelings. All sides! Population goals where reached and then they continues to grow because everyone chose one side or the other. Find the middle ground and support it. Much easier for WDFW to get aggressive with wolves when needed if they have some support.
I son't think will help us in the long run.
Just my :twocents:
Ask what is best for the ecosystem as whole. Not what is best to fill me tag.
-Ecosystems don't need wolves or grizzly bears, they have been fine without them for a hundred years-- the ultimate predator(humans) should be allowed to hunt more :twocents: more tags=more money and that is the problem really isn't it???
Post by: idahohuntr on February 27, 2015, 09:52:11 PM
Pot meet kettle :chuckle:There are 2 problems with your statement: 1 - Im not supporting any bill that fleeces taxpayers and 2 - I've got no problem with objective evaluations of wolf impacts to ungulates that will benefit wildlife management.
It is certainly your right to support politicians and ballot box wildlife management. I don't. BTW - How'd that work out for hounds and bear baiting in Wa state?
Post by: dreamunelk on February 27, 2015, 10:02:50 PM
Is it hunting or the killing that generate the dollars? Could be both? I am not sure. If it is about the killing our hunting heritage is doomed. But, I am a hunter not a killer.
For me it is the hunting! I choose to elk hunt areas with low healthy populations but, have big mature bulls. I am happy with tag soup knowing that I could have harvested but, chose to try for something else. Start to fully understand wildlife population dynamics and you will see the light. Look at the highest potential for mature bulls and you will find they are low population units. These units have healthy predator populations. It is the inefficient predator that is controlled.
Big bulls are smart bulls that escaped all the predators.
Beware the ballot box!
Post by: bearpaw on February 28, 2015, 07:40:52 AM
Do the research. It is not about the individual and not about the money. It is about hunting and the experience.
Is it hunting or the killing that generate the dollars? Could be both? I am not sure. If it is about the killing our hunting heritage is doomed. But, I am a hunter not a killer.
For me it is the hunting! I choose to elk hunt areas with low healthy populations but, have big mature bulls. I am happy with tag soup knowing that I could have harvested but, chose to try for something else. Start to fully understand wildlife population dynamics and you will see the light. Look at the highest potential for mature bulls and you will find they are low population units. These units have healthy predator populations. It is the inefficient predator that is controlled.
Big bulls are smart bulls that escaped all the predators.
Beware the ballot box!
Aren't most of the biggest bulls coming from units in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico where there are no wolves and cougars are hunted much harder than here in WA.
Hunters prefer the areas where there is good success, when herds drop and success drops the hunters quit coming. That has been proven many times in Idaho and other states where wolves have over populated and reduced what were once some of the greatest herds.
There have been countless pieces of legislation opposing hunting and I'm sure that trend will continue, it seems pretty foolish for hunters to not support legislation that favors hunters. :twocents:
Post by: mfswallace on February 28, 2015, 01:16:17 PM
Do the research. It is not about the individual and not about the money. It is about hunting and the experience.
Is it hunting or the killing that generate the dollars? Could be both? I am not sure. If it is about the killing our hunting heritage is doomed. But, I am a hunter not a killer.
For me it is the hunting! I choose to elk hunt areas with low healthy populations but, have big mature bulls. I am happy with tag soup knowing that I could have harvested but, chose to try for something else. Start to fully understand wildlife population dynamics and you will see the light. Look at the highest potential for mature bulls and you will find they are low population units. These units have healthy predator populations. It is the inefficient predator that is controlled.
Big bulls are smart bulls that escaped all the predators.
Beware the ballot box!
Here's some research you should read...
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 28, 2015, 02:59:52 PM
Agree Wallace. It is the most efficient hunter that is actually being controlled. Wolves are another way of controlling hunting.Do the research. It is not about the individual and not about the money. It is about hunting and the experience.
Is it hunting or the killing that generate the dollars? Could be both? I am not sure. If it is about the killing our hunting heritage is doomed. But, I am a hunter not a killer.
For me it is the hunting! I choose to elk hunt areas with low healthy populations but, have big mature bulls. I am happy with tag soup knowing that I could have harvested but, chose to try for something else. Start to fully understand wildlife population dynamics and you will see the light. Look at the highest potential for mature bulls and you will find they are low population units. These units have healthy predator populations. It is the inefficient predator that is controlled.
Big bulls are smart bulls that escaped all the predators.
Beware the ballot box!
Here's some research you should read...
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html)
Post by: stevemiller on February 28, 2015, 03:30:42 PM
Unless its the pro wolf side doing it right. Come on everytime a good idea comes up that both sides should easily agree with people like ypu still complain,Goes to show there is no winning with anyone that has these blinders on.Wolf stuff will always be poilitcal of course...but when politicians go beyond debating and legislating public policy and start writing bills directing how research is to be conducted... :bash:Politicians make poor scientists and wildlife managers. This bill does nothing to help manage wildlife and wastes resources and staff time. It is very poorly written and will not result in anything useful or beneficial for predator management or deer and elk management. Maybe it serves as a way to bring about more public dialogue about balancing predator populations and ungulate populations, which is great, as long as it does not pass and waste more money.
Another no voter, surprise surprise. :chuckle: :chuckle:
While politicians might make poor scientists the same could be said of pro-wolf supporters as well as wdfw who are more aligned with pro-wolf groups than an independent state agency should be
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2015, 03:51:30 PM
What problem will this bill solve? How will it improve wildlife management in Washington State? And is that benefit worth the cost?Unless its the pro wolf side doing it right. Come on everytime a good idea comes up that both sides should easily agree with people like ypu still complain,Goes to show there is no winning with anyone that has these blinders on.Wolf stuff will always be poilitcal of course...but when politicians go beyond debating and legislating public policy and start writing bills directing how research is to be conducted... :bash:Politicians make poor scientists and wildlife managers. This bill does nothing to help manage wildlife and wastes resources and staff time. It is very poorly written and will not result in anything useful or beneficial for predator management or deer and elk management. Maybe it serves as a way to bring about more public dialogue about balancing predator populations and ungulate populations, which is great, as long as it does not pass and waste more money.
Another no voter, surprise surprise. :chuckle: :chuckle:
While politicians might make poor scientists the same could be said of pro-wolf supporters as well as wdfw who are more aligned with pro-wolf groups than an independent state agency should be
Thats how I view this bill...this is not a wolf issue. This is strictly about using our limited resources effectively...no different than when I get riled up watching a bunch of F&W officers spend a bunch of time trying to make a non-wildlife related arrest in Tacoma.
Post by: KFhunter on February 28, 2015, 04:00:37 PM
WDFW say's they're fine
Peer review say's they aren't
what then? I don't see anything forcing WDFW to favor the peer report over that of their own or to even compromise.
Post by: stevemiller on February 28, 2015, 05:56:27 PM
Did putting them here to begin with show the cost effectiveness you were looking for?Like I said as long as its the pro side doing any of this crap its worth every penny right?What money does the wplf populations bring to the table?None,What money does the ungulates in WA. bring to the table tons.So dont try to push your benefit worth cost crap on the people that know differently.What problem will this bill solve? How will it improve wildlife management in Washington State? And is that benefit worth the cost?Unless its the pro wolf side doing it right. Come on everytime a good idea comes up that both sides should easily agree with people like ypu still complain,Goes to show there is no winning with anyone that has these blinders on.Wolf stuff will always be poilitcal of course...but when politicians go beyond debating and legislating public policy and start writing bills directing how research is to be conducted... :bash:Politicians make poor scientists and wildlife managers. This bill does nothing to help manage wildlife and wastes resources and staff time. It is very poorly written and will not result in anything useful or beneficial for predator management or deer and elk management. Maybe it serves as a way to bring about more public dialogue about balancing predator populations and ungulate populations, which is great, as long as it does not pass and waste more money.
Another no voter, surprise surprise. :chuckle: :chuckle:
While politicians might make poor scientists the same could be said of pro-wolf supporters as well as wdfw who are more aligned with pro-wolf groups than an independent state agency should be
Thats how I view this bill...this is not a wolf issue. This is strictly about using our limited resources effectively...no different than when I get riled up watching a bunch of F&W officers spend a bunch of time trying to make a non-wildlife related arrest in Tacoma.
Post by: stevemiller on February 28, 2015, 06:00:19 PM
this is exactly how i feel. :yeah:I'd support the bill but would also like to see verbiage that calls for analysis of how the predator impacts on ungulate populations may affect hunter tag distribution and harvest goals going forward.
And if the state were smart they would use that info to project( best possible) revenue losses. Not only from tags and licenses' but try and factor in economics from things like gas, Pittman Robertson act taxes collected(look at increase in sales starting in August -November), lodging .....etc
Post by: idahohuntr on February 28, 2015, 10:30:43 PM
Wolves were not re-introduced into WA state so I have no idea what you are talking about. I vehemently opposed the re-introduction of wolves into Idaho if that is your question.
Like I said as long as its the pro side doing any of this crap its worth every penny right?
Nope. I realize you want to desperately make this some pro v anti wolf issue. Its not. This bill doesn't do a dang thing for hunters yet it wastes license dollars and wdfw staff time that could be better spent elsewhere. If you have a piece of legislation that some greenie group is pushing that is also wasting sportsmens dollars I would oppose that as well. I judge a bill on its merits...not by who wrote it, votes for it, or any political bs it might achieve. :sry:
What money does the wplf populations bring to the table?None,What money does the ungulates in WA. bring to the table tons.So dont try to push your benefit worth cost crap on the people that know differently. :rolleyes: Despite your amusing efforts this is not an ungulate/wolf debate. I don't support bills or politicians who want to waste sportsmen resources...that money we all generate and spend as a result of those ungulates....its not unlimited and this report is a complete waste that will solve nothing and do nothing for sportsmen. And if there are other groups of legislators pushing different bills that waste sportsmen resources those should also be opposed...post 'em up so folks are aware.
[/quote]
If these legislators want to do something useful for sportsmen why don't they pass a bill to increase funding of hunter access programs? Why don't they pass a bill de-listing wolves from State ESA? Why don't they pass a bill allowing wolves to be hunted in GMU's where they are clearly recovered?
Why is it they want to pass a bill directing (in a ridiculous and meaningless manner) a report that will do nothing, solve nothing, address nothing for sportsmen in WA state?
Post by: bearpaw on February 28, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
This legislation will expedite that process! It may not matter what happens to game in the NE to some of you guys, but to other it does matter. If wolves are impacting our herds and need managed for that reason those studies will have to take place according to WDFW.
Post by: stevemiller on February 28, 2015, 11:00:47 PM
Your right its not even a hunting issue at all.You want them here for no reason other than to see if you people can get your way,Like a 13 year old kid.Just like all the other changes people like you do.
Dont keep saying that you dont support the people that waste sportsman dollars and at the same time support the wasting of sportsman dollars as a pro wolf advocate.If the state spends our money bringing wolves in at a cost to us,and then pay the cattleman for lost cattle and other damages,Then lose said wolves to diff. regions or even diff. states.
Post by: bobcat on February 28, 2015, 11:08:52 PM
Post by: haus on February 28, 2015, 11:15:14 PM
Post by: jasnt on February 28, 2015, 11:37:44 PM
WDFW stood at the public meeting in Colville and stated that they would have to study herd numbers to determine if wolf predation was affecting herd numbers before any season could be considered as stated in the wolf plan regarding ungulate predation by wolves.:yeah: they have already said this study must take place before wolf management can begin. This is why I support this bill. A better bill would be to rewrite the wolf plan. But that's dream land it seems. Let's scratch this requirement off the list and move on to the next hurdle.
This legislation will expedite that process! It may not matter what happens to game in the NE to some of you guys, but to other it does matter. If wolves are impacting our herds and need managed for that reason those studies will have to take place according to WDFW.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 01, 2015, 02:09:05 AM
I'd bet Sitka_blacktail and Aspenbud are the No's :hello:
How much? You're on.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 01, 2015, 07:29:37 AM
WDFW stood at the public meeting in Colville and stated that they would have to study herd numbers to determine if wolf predation was affecting herd numbers before any season could be considered as stated in the wolf plan regarding ungulate predation by wolves.This bill does not achieve the requirements set out in the current wolf plan. It will not expedite anything. In fact, it probably does the opposite...instead of having bio's spend more time collecting population data they will be conducting silly, uncontrolled comparisons that will reveal nothing about predation effects on ungulates.
This legislation will expedite that process! It may not matter what happens to game in the NE to some of you guys, but to other it does matter. If wolves are impacting our herds and need managed for that reason those studies will have to take place according to WDFW.
IDAHOHUNTR: Wolves were reentroduced into Wa. state as soon as you accept that we can have a dialogue .Correct, no use in us having any further dialogue on this topic. I would like to agree with you but no sense in both of us being wrong.
Steve, you seem to be very confused. First of all, wolves were never "reentroduced" into Washington state. If you continue to say that, and think that, nobody is going to take anything that you say serious. Second, Idahohunter is not a wolf advocate and he doesn't want wolves here, at least if I'm understanding his posts correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. If you're going to pick on somebody, you really need to get your facts straight.:tup:
Post by: stevemiller on March 01, 2015, 02:38:08 PM
Post by: stevemiller on March 01, 2015, 03:03:25 PM
Steve, you seem to be very confused. First of all, wolves were never "reentroduced" into Washington state. If you continue to say that, and think that, nobody is going to take anything that you say serious. Second, Idahohunter is not a wolf advocate and he doesn't want wolves here, at least if I'm understanding his posts correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. If you're going to pick on somebody, you really need to get your facts straight.I got my facts straight.I have a biologist family member in michigan that took care that the wolves taken to wa. And other states such as Idaho were all healthy and able before they were reintroduced.Believe it or not there are more wolves in wa. Than they want to admit to as well as that they have reintroduced them into this state and others.reintroduced to not be born their but taken there from another state.it is a fact that wa. Could not find any breeding pairs in the state and had to get breeding pairs from mich.
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2015, 04:09:59 PM
Post by: mfswallace on March 01, 2015, 04:21:19 PM
Steve, you seem to be very confused. First of all, wolves were never "reentroduced" into Washington state. If you continue to say that, and think that, nobody is going to take anything that you say serious. Second, Idahohunter is not a wolf advocate and he doesn't want wolves here, at least if I'm understanding his posts correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. If you're going to pick on somebody, you really need to get your facts straight.I got my facts straight.I have a biologist family member in michigan that took care that the wolves taken to wa. And other states such as Idaho were all healthy and able before they were reintroduced.Believe it or not there are more wolves in wa. Than they want to admit to as well as that they have reintroduced them into this state and others.reintroduced to not be born their but taken there from another state.it is a fact that wa. Could not find any breeding pairs in the state and had to get breeding pairs from mich.
Would love to see some documentation or proof of that :tup:
Post by: huntrights on March 01, 2015, 05:06:50 PM
WDFW stood at the public meeting in Colville and stated that they would have to study herd numbers to determine if wolf predation was affecting herd numbers before any season could be considered as stated in the wolf plan regarding ungulate predation by wolves.
This legislation will expedite that process! It may not matter what happens to game in the NE to some of you guys, but to other it does matter. If wolves are impacting our herds and need managed for that reason those studies will have to take place according to WDFW.
:yeah:
There are some that seem to be confused about this bill. We absolutely need an unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science) that assesses the health and trends of Washington’s wild ungulate populations where wolf populations exist and where they have not yet expanded.
There was a recent correlative (NOT CAUSATIVE) type of study that indicated lethal control of wolves may result in an increase of livestock depredation. Read the editorial (by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online! - see the link below) of this research; it gives an interesting perspective that may help some to understand why HB 1676 is important.
Believe It: Killing Wolves Works
Editorial
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
December 6, 2014
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm (http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm)
Correlative studies like the one referred to in the editorial might be used to mislead the general public and legislators that do not understand the difference between correlation and causation. Correlation does NOT imply causation.
Below is some interesting reading which may help some folks to understand why we may need to guide future research through legislation to ensure the science is sound and unbiased and that the research is what is needed by wildlife managers.
Correlation does not imply causation
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html (https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html)
Excerpt from article:
""Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other ..."
Correlation and Causation
https://explorable.com/correlation-and-causation (https://explorable.com/correlation-and-causation)
Excerpt from article:
"Correlation and causation, closely related to confounding variables, is the incorrect assumption that because something correlates, there is a causal relationship.
Causality is the area of statistics that is most commonly misused, and misinterpreted, by non-specialists. Media sources, politicians and lobby groups often leap upon a perceived correlation, and use it to 'prove' their own beliefs. They fail to understand that, just because results show a correlation, there is no proof of an underlying causality.
Many people assume that because a poll, or a statistic, contains many numbers, it must be scientific, and therefore correct."
Misuse, Misinterpretation and Bias
http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html?misuse_and_abuse_of_statistics.html (http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html?misuse_and_abuse_of_statistics.html)
Excerpt from article:
“A great deal has been written about the misuse of statistics by pressure groups and politicians, by pollsters and advertising campaigns, by the broadcast media (newspapers, magazines, television, and now the Internet), and even misuse by statisticians and scientists. In some instances the misuse has been simply lack of awareness of the kinds of problems that may be encountered, in others carelessness or lack of caution and review, whilst on occasion this misuse is deliberate. One reason for this has been the growth of so-called evidence-based policy making - using research results to guide and justify political, economic and social decision-making. Whilst carefully designed, peer-reviewed and repeatable research does provide a strong foundation for decision-making, weak research or selective presentation of results can have profoundly damaging consequences.”
The Ice Cream Murders: Correlation vs. Causation
http://biojournalism.com/2012/08/correlation-vs-causation/ (http://biojournalism.com/2012/08/correlation-vs-causation/)
Excerpt from article:
“From New York to Chicago, large cities have reported increases in violent crime and murder rates during certain periods. Suspiciously enough, sales of ice cream also skyrocket at the exact same time. … Even though ice cream and homicide rates are positively correlated, we cannot say that they have a causal relationship. In other words, ice cream consumption does not turn harmless Joe into a murderous monster.”
HB 1676 needs to pass.
Post by: mfswallace on March 01, 2015, 05:29:40 PM
WDFW stood at the public meeting in Colville and stated that they would have to study herd numbers to determine if wolf predation was affecting herd numbers before any season could be considered as stated in the wolf plan regarding ungulate predation by wolves.
This legislation will expedite that process! It may not matter what happens to game in the NE to some of you guys, but to other it does matter. If wolves are impacting our herds and need managed for that reason those studies will have to take place according to WDFW.
:yeah:
There are some that seem to be confused about this bill. We absolutely need an unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science) that assesses the health and trends of Washington’s wild ungulate populations where wolf populations exist and where they have not yet expanded.
There was a recent correlative (NOT CAUSATIVE) type of study that indicated lethal control of wolves may result in an increase of livestock depredation. Read the critical review (by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online! - see the link below) of this research; it may help some to understand why HB 1676 is important.
Believe It: Killing Wolves Works
Editorial
by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online!
December 6, 2014
http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm (http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm)
Correlative studies like the one referred to in the editorial might be used to mislead the general public and legislators that do not understand the difference between correlation and causation. Correlation does NOT imply causation.
Below is some interesting reading which may help some folks to understand why we may need to guide future research through legislation to ensure the science is sound and unbiased and that the research is what is needed by wildlife managers.
Correlation does not imply causation
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html (https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html)
""Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other ..."
Correlation and Causation
https://explorable.com/correlation-and-causation (https://explorable.com/correlation-and-causation)
"Correlation and causation, closely related to confounding variables, is the incorrect assumption that because something correlates, there is a causal relationship.
Causality is the area of statistics that is most commonly misused, and misinterpreted, by non-specialists. Media sources, politicians and lobby groups often leap upon a perceived correlation, and use it to 'prove' their own beliefs. They fail to understand that, just because results show a correlation, there is no proof of an underlying causality.
Many people assume that because a poll, or a statistic, contains many numbers, it must be scientific, and therefore correct."
Misuse, Misinterpretation and Bias
http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html?misuse_and_abuse_of_statistics.html (http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html?misuse_and_abuse_of_statistics.html)
“A great deal has been written about the misuse of statistics by pressure groups and politicians, by pollsters and advertising campaigns, by the broadcast media (newspapers, magazines, television, and now the Internet), and even misuse by statisticians and scientists. In some instances the misuse has been simply lack of awareness of the kinds of problems that may be encountered, in others carelessness or lack of caution and review, whilst on occasion this misuse is deliberate. One reason for this has been the growth of so-called evidence-based policy making - using research results to guide and justify political, economic and social decision-making. Whilst carefully designed, peer-reviewed and repeatable research does provide a strong foundation for decision-making, weak research or selective presentation of results can have profoundly damaging consequences.”
The Ice Cream Murders: Correlation vs. Causation
http://biojournalism.com/2012/08/correlation-vs-causation/ (http://biojournalism.com/2012/08/correlation-vs-causation/)
“From New York to Chicago, large cities have reported increases in violent crime and murder rates during certain periods. Suspiciously enough, sales of ice cream also skyrocket at the exact same time. … Even though ice cream and homicide rates are positively correlated, we cannot say that they have a causal relationship. In other words, ice cream consumption does not turn harmless Joe into a murderous monster.”
HB 1676 needs to pass.
:tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 01, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
I really could not have laid out a better case for why this bill should not be supported by sportsmen if I tried my very hardest. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: dreamunelk on March 01, 2015, 06:07:09 PM
Do the research. It is not about the individual and not about the money. It is about hunting and the experience.
Is it hunting or the killing that generate the dollars? Could be both? I am not sure. If it is about the killing our hunting heritage is doomed. But, I am a hunter not a killer.
For me it is the hunting! I choose to elk hunt areas with low healthy populations but, have big mature bulls. I am happy with tag soup knowing that I could have harvested but, chose to try for something else. Start to fully understand wildlife population dynamics and you will see the light. Look at the highest potential for mature bulls and you will find they are low population units. These units have healthy predator populations. It is the inefficient predator that is controlled.
Big bulls are smart bulls that escaped all the predators.
Beware the ballot box!
That is not research. Just someone saying what you want to hear. Use this type of stuff to defending hunting and hunters lose!
If you can not verify the source don't use it!
Here's some research you should read...
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html)
Post by: stevemiller on March 01, 2015, 06:23:35 PM
if their was any documentation or proof of a lot of things the gov. Does or does not do would be nice.but like a lot of things their just is no proof.but let me ask this 10 years ago anyone see or hear of any wolves where they see and hear them now? No. :rolleyes:Steve, you seem to be very confused. First of all, wolves were never "reentroduced" into Washington state. If you continue to say that, and think that, nobody is going to take anything that you say serious. Second, Idahohunter is not a wolf advocate and he doesn't want wolves here, at least if I'm understanding his posts correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am. If you're going to pick on somebody, you really need to get your facts straight.I got my facts straight.I have a biologist family member in michigan that took care that the wolves taken to wa. And other states such as Idaho were all healthy and able before they were reintroduced.Believe it or not there are more wolves in wa. Than they want to admit to as well as that they have reintroduced them into this state and others.reintroduced to not be born their but taken there from another state.it is a fact that wa. Could not find any breeding pairs in the state and had to get breeding pairs from mich.
Would love to see some documentation or proof of that :tup:
Post by: mfswallace on March 01, 2015, 06:45:19 PM
Do the research. It is not about the individual and not about the money. It is about hunting and the experience.
Is it hunting or the killing that generate the dollars? Could be both? I am not sure. If it is about the killing our hunting heritage is doomed. But, I am a hunter not a killer.
For me it is the hunting! I choose to elk hunt areas with low healthy populations but, have big mature bulls. I am happy with tag soup knowing that I could have harvested but, chose to try for something else. Start to fully understand wildlife population dynamics and you will see the light. Look at the highest potential for mature bulls and you will find they are low population units. These units have healthy predator populations. It is the inefficient predator that is controlled.
Big bulls are smart bulls that escaped all the predators.
Beware the ballot box!
That is not research. Just someone saying what you want to hear. Use this type of stuff to defending hunting and hunters lose!
If you can not verify the source don't use it!
Here's some research you should read...
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolves_and_hunting.html)
Ditto :bash:
Post by: Little Dave on March 01, 2015, 07:05:04 PM
No.
Here's why: The only probable winner with this law would be a lawyer.
A law like this is a shiny new tool in a trial lawyer's toolbox. If enacted, the very instant the department slips on one of the provisions of this law in even the slightest way, there will be an "environmental group" dispatching their lawyer to sue the department on behalf of the people. The lawsuit will be expensive and the state will end up paying that lawyer. The money for the lawsuit will come from where? Higher hunting license fees, staff cutbacks?
The department should be doing this anyway. Send them a letter.
Don't trust politicians and lawyers with wildlife management.
I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog.
Post by: huntrights on March 01, 2015, 07:09:09 PM
Please tell me that you see the extraordinary irony in what you just posted, huntrights. :chuckle:
I really could not have laid out a better case for why this bill should not be supported by sportsmen if I tried my very hardest. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Just curious, but ... Does that mean you believe that if you remove problematic wolves from a pack that attack livestock that depredation of livestock will increase? Please consider reading the post again.
However, you do have a right to your opinion as do all of us.
Post by: mfswallace on March 01, 2015, 07:24:58 PM
It sounds like a good idea...
No.
Here's why: The only probable winner with this law would be a lawyer.
A law like this is a shiny new tool in a trial lawyer's toolbox. If enacted, the very instant the department slips on one of the provisions of this law in even the slightest way, there will be an "environmental group" dispatching their lawyer to sue the department on behalf of the people. The lawsuit will be expensive and the state will end up paying that lawyer. The money for the lawsuit will come from where? Higher hunting license fees, staff cutbacks?
The department should be doing this anyway. Send them a letter.
Don't trust politicians and lawyers with wildlife management.
I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog.
Yes they should but they aren't :bash: your letters haven't changed anything just like mine :yike:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on March 01, 2015, 07:48:40 PM
There are some that seem to be confused about this bill. We absolutely need an unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science) that assesses the health and trends of Washington’s wild ungulate populations where wolf populations exist and where they have not yet expanded.
There was a recent correlative (NOT CAUSATIVE) type of study that indicated lethal control of wolves may result in an increase of livestock depredation. Read the critical review (by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online! - see the link below) of this research; it may help some to understand why HB 1676 is important.
Seems to be that "unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science)" is science that comes to the conclusion you already have. I don't think The Pinedale Weekly is a very strong source to rebuke the peer reviewed post-Doc work at WSU.
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2015, 07:59:14 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 01, 2015, 08:15:54 PM
No. Nor do I believe in a bill that directs a department to use the same methodology you despise to draw management conclusions about ungulate population trends. Fighting bad science with bad science makes for horrible policy and sportsmen lose.Please tell me that you see the extraordinary irony in what you just posted, huntrights. :chuckle:
I really could not have laid out a better case for why this bill should not be supported by sportsmen if I tried my very hardest. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Just curious, but ... Does that mean you believe that if you remove problematic wolves from a pack that attack livestock that depredation of livestock will increase?
As the gentleman above noted...lets not put wildlife management even more firmly in the hands of politicians and lawyers than it already is.
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2015, 08:21:47 PM
It would seem prudent to have some population counts on which to base management!
I think your right and there can't be anything wrong with that. I don't understand why folks are trying to muddy up the water with all this distracting dialog.
Post by: Little Dave on March 01, 2015, 08:40:14 PM
We invest a lot of time here to discuss wolves, but it counts for nothing posting, or debating wolves at camp, at the river, at the range but not to the folks that read the local paper that might stand with us and flooding the department with frequent letters.
It's work.
The idea that we step aside from our volunteer, stewardship ethic, the work, for the convenience of having a lawyer do the work for us is embarrassing. If that's what we are about to do, we deserve the result that we get.
Post by: huntrights on March 01, 2015, 09:10:00 PM
There are some that seem to be confused about this bill. We absolutely need an unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science) that assesses the health and trends of Washington’s wild ungulate populations where wolf populations exist and where they have not yet expanded.
There was a recent correlative (NOT CAUSATIVE) type of study that indicated lethal control of wolves may result in an increase of livestock depredation. Read the critical review (by Cat Urbigkit, Pinedale Online! - see the link below) of this research; it may help some to understand why HB 1676 is important.
Seems to be that "unbiased, peer-reviewed study (sound and unbiased science)" is science that comes to the conclusion you already have. I don't think The Pinedale Weekly is a very strong source to rebuke the peer reviewed post-Doc work at WSU.
Sound and unbiased science does not come to preconceived conclusions; valid studies need to be performed before coming to conclusions. Typically, good scientific studies will result in more questions that need to be answered through additional research (sound and unbiased science). To emphasize to all, correlation does NOT imply causation; that's a fact.
Article from Princeton.edu to clarify the semantics:
"Correlation does not imply causation"
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html (https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html)
Excerpt from article:
""Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). ..."
Now, for the record, let's take a look at what happened on the same day the "study" we are talking about was published ((December 3, 2014). Pay particular attention to the headlines.
Note the source of this first article:
WSU News
Research finds lethal wolf control backfires on livestock
https://news.wsu.edu/2014/12/03/research-finds-lethal-wolf-control-backfires-on-livestock/#.VJ203v84B (https://news.wsu.edu/2014/12/03/research-finds-lethal-wolf-control-backfires-on-livestock/#.VJ203v84B)
December 3, 2014
By Eric Sorensen, WSU science writer
Why Killing Wolves Might Not Save Livestock
New study fuels debate over how to reduce attacks on cows and sheep
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203-wolves-hunting-livestock-ranchers-endangered-species-environment/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203-wolves-hunting-livestock-ranchers-endangered-species-environment/)
By Warren Cornwall
for National Geographic
Published December 3, 2014
Wolf Hunting To Protect Livestock Is Counterproductive, New Study Says
http://www.hngn.com/articles/51609/20141203/wolf-hunting-to-protect-livestock-is-counterproductive-new-study-says.htm (http://www.hngn.com/articles/51609/20141203/wolf-hunting-to-protect-livestock-is-counterproductive-new-study-says.htm)
By Rebekah Marcarelli r.marcarelli@hngn.com | Dec 03, 2014 03:00 PM EST
NPR Story
11:00 am
Wed December 3, 2014
How Killing Wolves Might Be Leading To More Livestock Attacks
http://ijpr.org/post/study-killing-wolves-causes-more-livestock-depredation (http://ijpr.org/post/study-killing-wolves-causes-more-livestock-depredation)
By Courtney Flatt
How Killing Wolves Might Be Leading To More Livestock Attacks - Same article as above, but different website.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/study-killing-wolves-causes-more-livestock-depreda/ (http://www.opb.org/news/article/study-killing-wolves-causes-more-livestock-depreda/)
Dec. 3, 2014 | Northwest Public Radio
Study Faults Efforts at Wolf Management
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/washington-state-study-faults-efforts-at-wolf-management.html?_r=2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/washington-state-study-faults-efforts-at-wolf-management.html?_r=2)
By KIRK JOHNSON DEC. 3, 2014
December 3 2014, 2.40pm EST
Wolf cull backfires as wild canines feast on farm animals
http://theconversation.com/wolf-cull-backfires-as-wild-canines-feast-on-farm-animals-34997 (http://theconversation.com/wolf-cull-backfires-as-wild-canines-feast-on-farm-animals-34997)
First published December 3rd 2014, 11:16 am
Kill This Wolf and More Sheep Will Die, Study Suggests
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/kill-wolf-more-sheep-will-die-study-suggests-n260826 (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/kill-wolf-more-sheep-will-die-study-suggests-n260826)
By Miguel Llanos
Killing wolves to save livestock may backfire
http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2014/12/killing-wolves-save-livestock-may-backfire (http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2014/12/killing-wolves-save-livestock-may-backfire)
By
Virginia Morell
3 December 2014 2:00 pm
:twocents:
From a prior post:
Misuse, Misinterpretation and Bias
http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html?misuse_and_abuse_of_statistics.html (http://www.statsref.com/HTML/index.html?misuse_and_abuse_of_statistics.html)
Excerpt from article:
“A great deal has been written about the misuse of statistics by pressure groups and politicians, by pollsters and advertising campaigns, by the broadcast media (newspapers, magazines, television, and now the Internet), and even misuse by statisticians and scientists. In some instances the misuse has been simply lack of awareness of the kinds of problems that may be encountered, in others carelessness or lack of caution and review, whilst on occasion this misuse is deliberate. One reason for this has been the growth of so-called evidence-based policy making - using research results to guide and justify political, economic and social decision-making. Whilst carefully designed, peer-reviewed and repeatable research does provide a strong foundation for decision-making, weak research or selective presentation of results can have profoundly damaging consequences.”
Post by: huntrights on March 01, 2015, 09:39:06 PM
No. Nor do I believe in a bill that directs a department to use the same methodology you despise to draw management conclusions about ungulate population trends. Fighting bad science with bad science makes for horrible policy and sportsmen lose.Please tell me that you see the extraordinary irony in what you just posted, huntrights. :chuckle:
I really could not have laid out a better case for why this bill should not be supported by sportsmen if I tried my very hardest. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Just curious, but ... Does that mean you believe that if you remove problematic wolves from a pack that attack livestock that depredation of livestock will increase?
As the gentleman above noted...lets not put wildlife management even more firmly in the hands of politicians and lawyers than it already is.
Not sure where the conclusion of "fighting bad science with bad science" came from. Correlative studies and causative studies are both valid forms of science. Causative studies may follow correlative studies if the correlative studies indicate a very high probability of a causal relationship. Studies to establish causation may be performed if they are justified, and worth the expense and effort. Issues arise when correlative studies are misused, misinterpreted, or biased. (See the headlines about the study in a prior post).
All citizens should "despise" bad science, and any misuse, misinterpretation, and bias of any scientific studies.
Please read the bill:
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1676-S.pdf (http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1676-S.pdf)
Post by: idahohuntr on March 01, 2015, 10:12:03 PM
To emphasize for all, correlation does NOT imply causation; that's a fact.
Correlative studies and causative studies are both valid forms of science.:hello:
Correlation does not PROVE causation. With a plausible mechanism identified it can most certainly IMPLY causation.
Lets allow the professionals to design the studies and leave the politicians to come up with things more in their lane...like what the fine should be for a parking ticket...or other really important stuff like that :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on March 01, 2015, 10:20:19 PM
Post by: jasnt on March 02, 2015, 06:10:01 AM
If WDFW had already done population counts this wouldn't be an issue.they only count fish these days.
Post by: mfswallace on March 02, 2015, 06:50:53 AM
To emphasize for all, correlation does NOT imply causation; that's a fact.Correlative studies and causative studies are both valid forms of science.:hello:
Correlation does not PROVE causation. With a plausible mechanism identified it can most certainly IMPLY causation.
Lets allow the professionals to design the studies and leave the politicians to come up with things more in their lane...like what the fine should be for a parking ticket...or other really important stuff like that :tup:
When the "professionals" are biased they cease to be professional. Wdfw clearly favors pro-wolf groups, why will they take their money and help but not the cattlemens ass. ? You keep saying we're here deal with it, this "intense" ungulate population study should have been done before but wasn't, so yes, we're here and we need to deal with it in a more responsible manner than has happened so far :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 02, 2015, 08:29:39 AM
When the "professionals" are biased they cease to be professional. Wdfw clearly favors pro-wolf groups, why will they take their money and help but not the cattlemens ass. ?What pro-wolf money has wdfw taken? And what cattlemens money was not? I have heard of pro wolf groups offering big reward money to private citizens for the conviction of wolf poachers...which is their 1st amendment right. I've also heard that cattlemens unofficially offered to have someone of their choosing trap for wdfw. I hope you have something more than these two examples if you are using that as the basis for your argument that wdfw is biased towards pro wolf groups.
Post by: huntrights on March 02, 2015, 08:48:01 AM
To emphasize for all, correlation does NOT imply causation; that's a fact.Correlative studies and causative studies are both valid forms of science.:hello:
Correlation does not PROVE causation. With a plausible mechanism identified it can most certainly IMPLY causation.
Lets allow the professionals to design the studies and leave the politicians to come up with things more in their lane...like what the fine should be for a parking ticket...or other really important stuff like that :tup:
Just curious - Could you provide what you think a "plausible mechanism" would be to get the needed study done with the required funding and guidelines to ensure a sound and unbiased study is performed to give our wildlife managers the information they need? The bill provides an excellent mechanism to get the needed study done; if you believe you have a better idea, please share it.
Article from Princeton.edu to clarify the semantics:
"Correlation does not imply causation"
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html (https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.html)
Excerpt from article:
""Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation... in other words, correlation can be a hint). ..."
The "study" that has become part of this discussion should not distract from the original topic, HB 1676; it was mentioned to make sure people understand the difference between correlation and causation, and also to understand how "Misuse, Misinterpretation and Bias" might enter into the picture - see the headlines about the "study" in a prior post.
:twocents:
HB 1676 is good bill.
Post by: stevemiller on March 02, 2015, 09:10:03 AM
It would seem prudent to have some population counts on which to base management!This would have been easier to do If they were not trying so hard to hide what they brought into the state from other states.The way I understand it,It is so hush with more than one entity bringing them in they dont even know how or who all brought the pairs in.Of course you all know that this is a lie we already had a very sustainable number of gray wolves living in WA. Semantics:If you dont agree to the term reintroduced thats fine,How about relocated from another state?Were the elk reintroduced to WA?Elk,They were all but gone and were reintroduced from other states.I guess my question is this Idahohuntr,Do you think all the wolves we have in WA. today have been here all along and just needed to be left alone to populate or what?I dont get what you are saying about this at all.
Post by: mfswallace on March 02, 2015, 03:07:54 PM
When the "professionals" are biased they cease to be professional. Wdfw clearly favors pro-wolf groups, why will they take their money and help but not the cattlemens ass. ?What pro-wolf money has wdfw taken? And what cattlemens money was not? I have heard of pro wolf groups offering big reward money to private citizens for the conviction of wolf poachers...which is their 1st amendment right. I've also heard that cattlemens unofficially offered to have someone of their choosing trap for wdfw. I hope you have something more than these two examples if you are using that as the basis for your argument that wdfw is biased towards pro wolf groups.
1) Concerning smackout wolf that was found dead- http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release-print/mar1714a/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release-print/mar1714a/)
OLYMPIA - The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WFDW) is seeking the public's help to identify the person or persons responsible for shooting and killing a gray wolf last month in Stevens County.
WDFW, with the help of three non-profit organizations, is offering a reward of up to $22,500 for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case. Conservation Northwest, the Center for Biological Diversity, and The Humane Society of the United States, have each pledged $7,500 to create the reward.
2) Ruby Creek wolf captured, placed
in western Washington sanctuary
3) from http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/mar/01/conservationists-boost-rewards-bagging-poachers-washington/ (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/mar/01/conservationists-boost-rewards-bagging-poachers-washington/)
"Information is the coin of this realm,” said Mike Cenci, WDFW deputy chief of enforcement. “We appreciate Conservation Northwest’s donation, as it will help us do our job of putting poachers behind bars and keeping Washington’s wildlife safe for everyone to enjoy.”
4) Only 1 of the 4 huckleberry wolves slated for extinction was killed after pressure from CNW and others
5) While I doubt you'll believe this, you must admit this is a well established professional organization-- Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association President Scott Nielsen.
“After working on the wolf issue for two years and attempting to engage the Department of Fish and Wildlife on this issue by having dozens of meetings, sending letters, testifying before the Fish and Wildlife Commission, holding public meetings for WDFW to speak at and trying to work the channels they have available, we have experienced a total failure in public policy,” said Nielsen. “All of these efforts to get the state to abide by its own wolf plan and to implement lethal control or consider other options like translocation have been largely futile. The state is not serious about following the Wolf Conservation and Management plan and their inconsistency is going to put our family ranches out of business.”
I don't expect you to accept this as bias but you asked...
Post by: idahohuntr on March 02, 2015, 05:26:16 PM
Just curious - Could you provide what you think a "plausible mechanism" would be to get the needed study done with the required funding and guidelines to ensure a sound and unbiased study is performed to give our wildlife managers the information they need? The bill provides an excellent mechanism to get the needed study done; if you believe you have a better idea, please share it.Yes, I have a much better idea - it's founded upon the premise that professional wildlife managers design and conduct appropriate analyses to manage the states wildlife as opposed to part-time political hacks and lawyers. It is fine if you like ballot box wildlife management...its what brought us hound and bait bans...I simply refuse to support that kind of management or "science" :puke:
Idahohuntr,Do you think all the wolves we have in WA. today have been here all along and just needed to be left alone to populate or what?I dont get what you are saying about this at all.
Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP starting in 1995. The wolves in WA migrated from there as populations expanded in those regions. It is also very likely wolves moved in/around WA before 1995, primarily from BC. I don't know what you mean about being left alone to populate.
I don't expect you to accept this as bias but you asked...
I don't. The money was not provided to WDFW...it was a reward to any citizen with information...It is well within their right to offer up such a reward. The other stuff you posted... :dunno: The greenies would post that the wedge pack removal effort and many other lethal actions are all because wdfw is catering to cattlemens and hunters. When you've got both sides of a controversial issue crying foul...you're probably doing something right :chuckle:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 02, 2015, 06:04:02 PM
Post by: mfswallace on March 02, 2015, 07:10:36 PM
The difference being these actions are written into the wolf management plan but wdfw is ignoring their own plan :bash:
Post by: jasnt on March 02, 2015, 07:58:08 PM
Possible? There was a article in the seatle times about a wolf captured and collared in 1992.
Post by: wolfbait on March 02, 2015, 08:13:46 PM
Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP starting in 1995. The wolves in WA migrated from there as populations expanded in those regions. It is also very likely wolves moved in/around WA before 1995, primarily from BC. I don't know what you mean about being left alone to populate.
Possible? There was a article in the seatle times about a wolf captured and collared in 1992.
Why did WDFW lie about the wolves of the 1980's-1990's?
Post by: jasnt on March 02, 2015, 08:50:18 PM
Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP starting in 1995. The wolves in WA migrated from there as populations expanded in those regions. It is also very likely wolves moved in/around WA before 1995, primarily from BC. I don't know what you mean about being left alone to populate.
Possible? There was a article in the seatle times about a wolf captured and collared in 1992.
Why did WDFW lie about the wolves of the 1980's-1990's?
Good question
Post by: bobcat on March 02, 2015, 09:22:20 PM
Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP starting in 1995. The wolves in WA migrated from there as populations expanded in those regions. It is also very likely wolves moved in/around WA before 1995, primarily from BC. I don't know what you mean about being left alone to populate.
Possible? There was a article in the seatle times about a wolf captured and collared in 1992.
Why did WDFW lie about the wolves of the 1980's-1990's?
Good question
I'm not sure why you say they lied. This is from the wolf plan:
Post by: wolfbait on March 02, 2015, 09:34:32 PM
Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP starting in 1995. The wolves in WA migrated from there as populations expanded in those regions. It is also very likely wolves moved in/around WA before 1995, primarily from BC. I don't know what you mean about being left alone to populate.
Possible? There was a article in the seatle times about a wolf captured and collared in 1992.
Why did WDFW lie about the wolves of the 1980's-1990's?
Good question
I'm not sure why you say they lied. This is from the wolf plan:
I guess the lie would come in at "First Wolf Pack in Seventy Years". Thats the trouble with history Bobcat, it ruins it for the for the pro-wolf side.
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/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
Post by: mfswallace on March 03, 2015, 08:12:31 AM
Wolves were reintroduced into Idaho and YNP starting in 1995. The wolves in WA migrated from there as populations expanded in those regions. It is also very likely wolves moved in/around WA before 1995, primarily from BC. I don't know what you mean about being left alone to populate.
Possible? There was a article in the seatle times about a wolf captured and collared in 1992.
Why did WDFW lie about the wolves of the 1980's-1990's?
Good question
I'm not sure why you say they lied. This is from the wolf plan:
I guess the lie would come in at "First Wolf Pack in Seventy Years". Thats the trouble with history Bobcat, it ruins it for the for the pro-wolf side.
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/ (http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/06/08/in-washington-feds-opt-for-wolf-introduction-over-recovery/)
:yike: smoking gun for all those who still see no bias!
Good article :tup:
to bad all that will be said is "who cares we're here now, deal with it. WDFW isn't on the side of pro wolf advocates, it's all lies by people who want responsible honest gov't." :bash:
Post by: huntrights on March 03, 2015, 06:33:33 PM
HB 1676 is a good bill.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 03, 2015, 06:38:17 PM
:chuckle:
HB 1676 is a good bill.
If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.
Post by: mfswallace on March 03, 2015, 08:19:48 PM
:chuckle:
HB 1676 is a good bill.
If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.
So WDFW motto should be. :chuckle:
If you like your ungulates, you can keep them.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 03, 2015, 09:31:38 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 05, 2015, 10:43:49 PM
This is really getting comical now...the bill was modified a while ago and I did not realize it. Now it is going to be the University of Washington, Predator Ecology Lab in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, conducting a 4 year study on wolves and ungulates. It will now cost well into the 6 figures to fund.
HB 1676 is a good bill.
Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/ (http://pacificwolves.org/)) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So...all you "Yes" voters like huntrights that support this bill against my advice that no good could come from politicians directing research...may I ask why you think a group of Seattle academics who partner with wolf advocacy organizations advising and informing the state on how to manage predators and ungulates in Eastern Washington is a good idea?
NO GOOD WILL COME OF POLITICIANS DIRECTING RESEARCH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SUCH A DIRECT MANNER. To those handful of folks who voted no... :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2015, 08:10:14 AM
This is really getting comical now...the bill was modified a while ago and I did not realize it. Now it is going to be the University of Washington, Predator Ecology Lab in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, conducting a 4 year study on wolves and ungulates. It will now cost well into the 6 figures to fund.
HB 1676 is a good bill.
Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/ (http://pacificwolves.org/)) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So...all you "Yes" voters like huntrights that support this bill against my advice that no good could come from politicians directing research...may I ask why you think a group of Seattle academics who partner with wolf advocacy organizations advising and informing the state on how to manage predators and ungulates in Eastern Washington is a good idea?
NO GOOD WILL COME OF POLITICIANS DIRECTING RESEARCH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SUCH A DIRECT MANNER. To those handful of folks who voted no... :tup:
If this is true I would not be in favor of the bill now. The herd counts/study needs to be done by WDFW.
The WSU cougar study resulted in the current cougar quota mismanagement. If true about WSU, this is a turn for the bad with this bill.
Post by: jasnt on March 06, 2015, 08:12:48 AM
:yeah: bad bad bad!This is really getting comical now...the bill was modified a while ago and I did not realize it. Now it is going to be the University of Washington, Predator Ecology Lab in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, conducting a 4 year study on wolves and ungulates. It will now cost well into the 6 figures to fund.
HB 1676 is a good bill.
Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/ (http://pacificwolves.org/)) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So...all you "Yes" voters like huntrights that support this bill against my advice that no good could come from politicians directing research...may I ask why you think a group of Seattle academics who partner with wolf advocacy organizations advising and informing the state on how to manage predators and ungulates in Eastern Washington is a good idea?
NO GOOD WILL COME OF POLITICIANS DIRECTING RESEARCH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SUCH A DIRECT MANNER. To those handful of folks who voted no... :tup:
If this is true I would not be in favor of the bill now. The herd counts/study needs to be done by WDFW.
The WSU cougar study resulted in the current cougar quota mismanagement. If true about WSU, this is a turn for the bad with this bill.
Post by: dreamunelk on March 06, 2015, 08:23:03 AM
This is really getting comical now...the bill was modified a while ago and I did not realize it. Now it is going to be the University of Washington, Predator Ecology Lab in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, conducting a 4 year study on wolves and ungulates. It will now cost well into the 6 figures to fund.
HB 1676 is a good bill.
Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/ (http://pacificwolves.org/)) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So...all you "Yes" voters like huntrights that support this bill against my advice that no good could come from politicians directing research...may I ask why you think a group of Seattle academics who partner with wolf advocacy organizations advising and informing the state on how to manage predators and ungulates in Eastern Washington is a good idea?
NO GOOD WILL COME OF POLITICIANS DIRECTING RESEARCH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SUCH A DIRECT MANNER. To those handful of folks who voted no... :tup:
:yeah:
Not good!
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2015, 03:00:10 PM
This is really getting comical now...the bill was modified a while ago and I did not realize it. Now it is going to be the University of Washington, Predator Ecology Lab in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, conducting a 4 year study on wolves and ungulates. It will now cost well into the 6 figures to fund.
HB 1676 is a good bill.
Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/ (http://pacificwolves.org/)) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So...all you "Yes" voters like huntrights that support this bill against my advice that no good could come from politicians directing research...may I ask why you think a group of Seattle academics who partner with wolf advocacy organizations advising and informing the state on how to manage predators and ungulates in Eastern Washington is a good idea?
NO GOOD WILL COME OF POLITICIANS DIRECTING RESEARCH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SUCH A DIRECT MANNER. To those handful of folks who voted no... :tup:
If this is true I would not be in favor of the bill now. The herd counts/study needs to be done by WDFW.
The WSU cougar study resulted in the current cougar quota mismanagement. If true about WSU, this is a turn for the bad with this bill.
I commented before investigating, I just got off the phone with a friend in Olympia regarding Substitute Bill 1676.
I misread the post by Idahohntr and assumed Wielgus would somehow be involved at WSU. I was wrong, the amendment will fund a study by Aaron Wirsing at UW. Wirsing may have a different perspective on predators than Wielgus.
I didn't get a chance to talk to our legislators Short and Kretz, but I was told Short favors the amended bill. I wouldn't think that she would support the amendment if she thought we would get a bogus study.
The one thing I am certain of is that we need to know the impacts of predators on ungulate populations, especially wolf impacts, which is what this bill addresses. Since this study doesn't involve Wielgus it will hopefully be an unbiased study of wolf impacts.
Post by: Bob33 on March 06, 2015, 03:14:50 PM
Here's your study group members: http://www.predatorecology.com/current-lab-members.html (http://www.predatorecology.com/current-lab-members.html)
They are led by Aaron Wirsing. http://coenv.washington.edu/faculty/aaron-wirsing/ (http://coenv.washington.edu/faculty/aaron-wirsing/)
"Aaron Wirsing is an ecologist who studies the ways that large carnivores can change the lives of their prey beyond simply killing and eating them. Using a combination of fieldwork and modeling techniques, and working in both terrestrial and aquatic systems, he looks at the ways that top predators, such as grey wolves and tiger sharks, can shape their communities and ecosystems through their presence alone. His suite of projects shows the benefits of what he calls an “ecology without borders” approach. By comparing the mechanisms that drive predator effects in both aquatic and terrestrial environments, he aims to show underlying similarities between two seemingly disparate systems. "
Post by: wolfbait on March 06, 2015, 04:50:34 PM
This is really getting comical now...the bill was modified a while ago and I did not realize it. Now it is going to be the University of Washington, Predator Ecology Lab in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, conducting a 4 year study on wolves and ungulates. It will now cost well into the 6 figures to fund.
HB 1676 is a good bill.
Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/ (http://pacificwolves.org/)) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
So...all you "Yes" voters like huntrights that support this bill against my advice that no good could come from politicians directing research...may I ask why you think a group of Seattle academics who partner with wolf advocacy organizations advising and informing the state on how to manage predators and ungulates in Eastern Washington is a good idea?
NO GOOD WILL COME OF POLITICIANS DIRECTING RESEARCH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN SUCH A DIRECT MANNER. To those handful of folks who voted no... :tup:
If this is true I would not be in favor of the bill now. The herd counts/study needs to be done by WDFW.
The WSU cougar study resulted in the current cougar quota mismanagement. If true about WSU, this is a turn for the bad with this bill.
I commented before investigating, I just got off the phone with a friend in Olympia regarding Substitute Bill 1676.
I misread the post by Idahohntr and assumed Wielgus would somehow be involved at WSU. I was wrong, the amendment will fund a study by Aaron Wirsing at UW. Wirsing may have a different perspective on predators than Wielgus.
I didn't get a chance to talk to our legislators Short and Kretz, but I was told Short favors the amended bill. I wouldn't think that she would support the amendment if she thought we would get a bogus study.
The one thing I am certain of is that we need to know the impacts of predators on ungulate populations, especially wolf impacts, which is what this bill addresses. Since this study doesn't involve Wielgus it will hopefully be an unbiased study of wolf impacts.
:tup:
Post by: huntrights on March 06, 2015, 05:09:43 PM
Here is my really favorite part for all of you like huntrights proclaiming this is a "good bill" for hunters...UW Predator Ecology Lab was proud to announce their joining the Pacific Wolf Coalition in a recent panel (Oct 2014)- And if you go to the Pacific Wolf Coalition website (http://pacificwolves.org/ (http://pacificwolves.org/)) you will see they are an organization pleased to be bringing wolves home to the west. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
It's good to see folks doing some research; however, to make sure there is no confusion.
Here is the paragraph out of the blog that is being referred to:
http://www.predatorecology.com/blog/archives/10-2014 (http://www.predatorecology.com/blog/archives/10-2014)
Welcome to the Predator Ecology Lab blog!
10/22/2014
"As a first bit of news, we just joined the Pacific Wolf Coalition and Dr. John Marzluff (professor and leader of the Wildlife Science group in the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences) to host a highly successful panel on gray wolf management in the Pacific Northwest. We will post a full video of the meeting as soon as it becomes available." [Bold emphasis added]
They did not "Join" the Pacific Wolf Coalition; it appears they worked together with that organization and Dr. John Marzluff to host a panel on gray wolf management in the Pacific Northwest. If anyone attended that event, please share your thoughts. They said there will be a full video of the meeting at some time in the future.
:twocents:
The whole emphasis should be to pursue sound and unbiased science regardless of who does the work. If researchers have shown through past projects that they tend to be biased, then they should not be given funding for further research.
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 06, 2015, 10:58:06 PM
If anyone thinks that we can trigger the section of the wolf plan to reduce wolf populations because of ungulate declines based on hunter harvest, you have another thing coming. It would never pass the anti's lawsuit. The antis will claim less people hunting using declining license sales to back their case, habitat destruction, lack of forage, hard winters, etc. The antis would win their case in a heartbeat. The only way we can ever trigger that section of the wolf plan is by the effects of predators on fawn and calf recruitment. Hunter harvest data is too late anyway. You are locking the door after the horse has been stolen. The damage by predators has been done. This study would take fawn and calf recruitment into account, pregnancy rates, and abortions due stress from wolves, so you are going further than just the killing of fawns and calves, but pre-birth killings also. The Makah Nation did a wonderful study on fawn mortality in blacktail deer.
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 06, 2015, 11:18:43 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2015, 11:23:50 PM
Post by: wolfbait on March 07, 2015, 08:09:57 AM
Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:
X2, :tup:
Post by: huntrights on March 07, 2015, 10:17:46 AM
Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:
x3 :tup:
Post by: idahohuntr on March 07, 2015, 08:42:54 PM
Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:X2, :tup:
I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher. The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work. 1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:x3 :tup:
On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people. He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work. Small world. :tup:
Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.
Post by: mfswallace on March 08, 2015, 07:54:10 AM
Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:X2, :tup:I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher. The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work. 1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:x3 :tup:
On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people. He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work. Small world. :tup:
Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.
Lets just hope he doesn't think its all habitat or weather or anything other than wolves like yourself :chuckle:
I still can't believe you aren't for this type of legislation even if wdfw funding were used, how can we manage wolves and ungulates without knowing how many there are :dunno: What would you rather see funding do?
Post by: idahohuntr on March 08, 2015, 08:42:40 AM
I don't disagree with the premise of evaluating wolf/ungulate impacts. I loathe the idea of politicians trying to meddle with/design/direct in a very detailed manner the research to be conducted. As I've stated, those of you who prefer ballot box wildlife management...that is your prerogative. Its what led us to hound and bait bans.Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:X2, :tup:I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher. The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work. 1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:x3 :tup:
On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people. He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work. Small world. :tup:
Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.
Lets just hope he doesn't think its all habitat or weather or anything other than wolves like yourself :chuckle:
I still can't believe you aren't for this type of legislation even if wdfw funding were used, how can we manage wolves and ungulates without knowing how many there are :dunno: What would you rather see funding do?
Post by: huntrights on March 08, 2015, 12:54:36 PM
Perhaps the Initiative process needs to have some guidelines imposed to prevent abuse. Recently, we saw what happens when billionaires pursued their anti-gun ideologies/agendas via funding emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe to mislead the voters regarding I-594: The Anti-gun Initiative. We now have an unenforceable, and likely unconstitutional law on the books because of an initiative that was approved by misled and confused voters. Did something similar happen in 1996 when Initiative I-655 was approved by the voters of Washington? I-655 was the initiative that prohibited the use of dogs and bait to hunt bear and cougar with some exceptions.
Initiatives to the People – 1996
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=1996 (http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=1996)
INITIATIVE 655
AN ACT Relating to methods of taking wildlife; adding a new section to chapter 77.16 RCW; and prescribing penalties.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i655.pdf (http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i655.pdf)
Activists Pushing Initiative 655
Associated Press The Spokesman-Review
November 3, 1996 - Updated: July 16, 7:41 p.m.
http://m.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/03/activists-pushing-initiative-655/ (http://m.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/03/activists-pushing-initiative-655/)
Animal-rights, anti-hunting, and anti-gun zealots are turning to the initiative process to force their agendas and ideologies into law. They can fund emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe to mislead the public in order to obtain the votes they need to pass their Initiatives. They also tend to abuse the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Equal Access to Justice Act by filing, or threatening to file lawsuits against government agencies that are tasked with managing our wildlife resources and public lands.
HB 1676 did not come about due to misguided, emotionally-driven initiatives like I-594 and I-655. We need sound and unbiased science to understand the effects of predation on wild ungulate populations. We also need to understand that ecosystems in which large apex predators are being reintroduced and protected in the lower 48 states are not isolated wilderness areas with little or no human influence like those that may exist in remote regions of Canada and Alaska. The ecosystems that are considered “suitable habitats” in the lower 48 states for these large apex predators are multiple-use ecosystems with human influence everywhere, even in designated wilderness areas. Ranching, farming, outdoor recreation activities, roads, trails, urban and rural human settlements are intertwined or in relative close proximity to these so-called “suitable habitats”. To believe that large apex predators can be reintroduced into their historic ranges that existed in the lower 48 states hundreds or thousands of years ago without significant impact is ludicrous. Predators and prey do not recognize boundaries that humans draw on maps; they simply live and move to where they can survive.
This is an article worth reading:
The Future of North American Wolves, Interview with Dr. Valerius Geist
http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/2013/08/14/the-future-of-north-american-wolves-interview-with-dr-valerius-geist/ (http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/2013/08/14/the-future-of-north-american-wolves-interview-with-dr-valerius-geist/)
We also need to be vigilant in protecting The North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the most successful in the world.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx)
:twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on March 08, 2015, 02:51:46 PM
Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:X2, :tup:I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher. The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work. 1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:x3 :tup:
On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people. He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work. Small world. :tup:
Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.
Lets just hope he doesn't think its all habitat or weather or anything other than wolves like yourself :chuckle:
I still can't believe you aren't for this type of legislation even if wdfw funding were used, how can we manage wolves and ungulates without knowing how many there are :dunno: What would you rather see funding do?
That's the question that needs answer first, and probably the one WDFW don't want answers to.
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 08, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:X2, :tup:I am glad to see you all support Dr. Wirsing doing this research and will accept him as an unbiased researcher. The more I think about it I do see 2 really good things about him doing this work. 1- It does not waste wdfw staff time which could be better spent collecting wildlife data and managing wildlife for hunters and 2 - Being a tenure track faculty he will be largely insulated from state politics trying to interfere with normal scientific process.Thanks for the clarification Hunter4Life! :tup:x3 :tup:
On another very intriguing note...Dr. Wirsing and I share many things and have worked with a number of the exact same people. He and I have even received the exact same award from the same institution...I am happy to see he will be doing the work. Small world. :tup:
Anyways, I look forward to his report and again, I'm really happy that you guys respect him and will support him as an unbiased researcher.
Lets just hope he doesn't think its all habitat or weather or anything other than wolves like yourself :chuckle:
I still can't believe you aren't for this type of legislation even if wdfw funding were used, how can we manage wolves and ungulates without knowing how many there are :dunno: What would you rather see funding do?
Mfswallace, I agree 100% I agree with everything you said, but the bigger question is, why hasn't this already study been started? With the introduction of a new apex predator, why hasn't the effects of wolves on ungulates been started to be studied at the latest right after the wolf plan was adopted? I agree in principle with what idahohuntr said about the legislature managing wildlife, but there comes a time when the legislature has to step in. Managing wildlife legislatively normally is not a good thing, but in this case, how long do we wait for the Department to take action, especially when this should have been started long ago?
Quote
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of Hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.
How long should we have waited for WDFW to take action on this issue? In this case the legislature did what needed to be done. It is great that huntrights made a comment about I-655. Compare what WDFW has done after wolves were reintroduced to what the Colville Nation did on reservation lands after I-655 passed. Joe Peone was the tribal biologist at that time, and not only was he a great biologist, he was a fine man, and a voice of reason. The Colville science was so solid and their counts so good, they knew exactly what the effects of I-655 had on their ungulate populations because of increased numbers of cougars and they solved the problem. They reduced cougar numbers. With great counts, the Colvilles knew exactly what had to be done to save ungulate populations. And they followed through on what had to be done.
Now back to WDFW and the Commission. This is RCW 77.04.012, their mandate:
Quote
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
Do you really believe the Commission has accomplished the statement below from the mandate?
Quote
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
If they did, bills like HB 1676 would not be necessary. It is a crime this hasn't already been started. WDFW based their cougar management on the so-called "science" of that idiot Rob Wielgus at WSU, the Grand Imperial Poohbah of the Animal Rights community.
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 08, 2015, 03:31:09 PM
:twocents:
Perhaps the Initiative process needs to have some guidelines imposed to prevent abuse. Recently, we saw what happens when billionaires pursued their anti-gun ideologies/agendas via funding emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe to mislead the voters regarding I-594: The Anti-gun Initiative. We now have an unenforceable, and likely unconstitutional law on the books because of an initiative that was approved by misled and confused voters. Did something similar happen in 1996 when Initiative I-655 was approved by the voters of Washington? I-655 was the initiative that prohibited the use of dogs and bait to hunt bear and cougar with some exceptions.
Initiatives to the People – 1996
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=1996 (http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/people.aspx?y=1996)
INITIATIVE 655
AN ACT Relating to methods of taking wildlife; adding a new section to chapter 77.16 RCW; and prescribing penalties.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i655.pdf (http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i655.pdf)
Activists Pushing Initiative 655
Associated Press The Spokesman-Review
November 3, 1996 - Updated: July 16, 7:41 p.m.
http://m.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/03/activists-pushing-initiative-655/ (http://m.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/03/activists-pushing-initiative-655/)
Animal-rights, anti-hunting, and anti-gun zealots are turning to the initiative process to force their agendas and ideologies into law. They can fund emotionally-based propaganda and diatribe to mislead the public in order to obtain the votes they need to pass their Initiatives. They also tend to abuse the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Equal Access to Justice Act by filing, or threatening to file lawsuits against government agencies that are tasked with managing our wildlife resources and public lands.
HB 1676 did not come about due to misguided, emotionally-driven initiatives like I-594 and I-655. We need sound and unbiased science to understand the effects of predation on wild ungulate populations. We also need to understand that ecosystems in which large apex predators are being reintroduced and protected in the lower 48 states are not isolated wilderness areas with little or no human influence like those that may exist in remote regions of Canada and Alaska. The ecosystems that are considered “suitable habitats” in the lower 48 states for these large apex predators are multiple-use ecosystems with human influence everywhere, even in designated wilderness areas. Ranching, farming, outdoor recreation activities, roads, trails, urban and rural human settlements are intertwined or in relative close proximity to these so-called “suitable habitats”. To believe that large apex predators can be reintroduced into their historic ranges that existed in the lower 48 states hundreds or thousands of years ago without significant impact is ludicrous. Predators and prey do not recognize boundaries that humans draw on maps; they simply live and move to where they can survive.
This is an article worth reading:
The Future of North American Wolves, Interview with Dr. Valerius Geist
http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/2013/08/14/the-future-of-north-american-wolves-interview-with-dr-valerius-geist/ (http://www.outdoorhub.com/opinions/2013/08/14/the-future-of-north-american-wolves-interview-with-dr-valerius-geist/)
We also need to be vigilant in protecting The North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the most successful in the world.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx)
:twocents:
Reform of the initiative process will be difficult at best. The state constitution strongly protects the initiative process, and we have the most wide-open initiative process in the United States. When the state constitution was adopted, this made sense. At that time, the state's population was spread all about, and it was hard for citizens to contact their elected officials. A liberal initiative process was put in place so that citizens could have a second way to influence government. This process worked well for a little more than a hundred years. Now the initiative process is a business. It is not a citizens' process. It is a big money game. You can't get an initiative on the ballot without paid signature gatherers. It has been over 20 years since a citizens' campaign, a campaign with volunteer signature gatherers gathering signatures, without the help of a professional initiative company, successfully got an initiative on the ballot. To see how big a business the initiative process has become, you can look no further than the two gun initiatives of 2014. The same signature gathering services were gathering signatures with I-594 on one side of the cardboard, and I-549 on the other. This is not the fault of either campaign, both were doing what was necessary to get on the ballot.
How do we reform the process? Legislative reform will be very tough. Historically, the state supreme court has almost always defended the initiative process. So any law too restrictive will have to beat a court challenge. There are precedents that make it near impossible to limit the amounts one can give to initiatives. I guess to me, the better question is, how do we get better at the initiative game?
On I-594, there is no way we had a prayer of winning. You can't defeat $12 million donated to several organizations. You can't compete with that kind of money. There is still something to be learned here however. I heard so many people say that the NRA should have done more to beat I-594. What a joke that comment is. The NRA donated almost $800,000 to fight I-594. They have 50 states to battle in. There is only so much they can do and they don't have unlimited funds.
The old saying is true, "We have met the enemy and it is us." The number of small donors ($25 and under) that gave to fight I-594 was tiny compared to the small donors who supported I-594. We can't depend on national organizations like USSA, SCI, NSSF to come in and fight our battles or give us assistance. They don't know our issues or our demographics like we do. Washington battles involving hunting need to be fought by Washington hunters. If national organizations want to help, we would welcome it, we would love to have it, but we have to be able to help ourselves. National organizations will only come in if they feel they can make a difference. They come in like PACs do to a candidate. A PAC won't donate unless a candidate has a viable organization to win, the PAC wouldn't help you get that organization. A better question would be, what alliances can we make within our state? A great solution is an article from Sports Afield titled, "Beating the antis at their own game." You can read it below.
Post by: mfswallace on March 08, 2015, 09:16:21 PM
Seems this has also been broken with wolf introduction :twocents:
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 11, 2015, 08:06:23 AM
Post by: Curly on March 11, 2015, 08:54:58 AM
I'm glad it passed.
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 11, 2015, 02:48:12 PM
Shouldn't studies that this bill is requiring to be done have been performed PRIOR to creation and implementation of the ridiculous wolf management plan?
I'm glad it passed.
You hit the nail on the head Curly. That is the $128,000 question. Why wasn't this done before the wolf plan passed, or at worst case, started immediately after it passed? Years later, still nothing from WDFW, or the Commission. I am glad the legislature took action. How long were we supposed to wait for the Commission to do something?