Post by: wolfbait on November 10, 2009, 08:52:50 AM
The wolf group generally looked like a bunch of liars. Their spiel probably works real well in Seattle but it didn't fly in the Okanogan. In fact, one of the meeting attendees suggested that they round up their wolves and release them all up and down the I-5 corridor, to a round of loud applause and cheers from the audience. The meeting was well attended by a large number of knowledgeable, well-prepared and very angry ranchers, outfitters and hunters. They attempted to report accurate data regarding what wolves really do to the game herds, livestock, and the livelihood of communities. It was not a comfortable place to be if you love wolves and are not concerned with such silly things as truth and accountability. They were called on their lies and had no place to run, but it was obvious that they are confident that they are going to proceed with their plan without any regard to the reality of the devastation to wildlife and the welfare of ranchers and outfitters.
Later, as the audience was allowed to question, they came across as weak in anything resembling truth, but indifferent because they are going to cram their plan through anyway. Several audience members asked why they were not focusing on and concerned about the small, struggling elk, moose, and Dall sheep herds in Washington. The biologist in the front smugly interrupted and said that he would relieve the woman moderator for a moment and answer that question. He answered, "They'll get eaten!" They couldn't say that tag money and such would not be used for wolf recovery. They had very little to say when folks told them of family members in other states who had lost livestock to wolves and defenders of wildlife had never paid them a dime. Their line of BS that wolves do not hurt the wild game herds landed like a turd next to the toilet. They tried many times to deny that they had planted wolves in the Methow Valley, and except for the very few pro-wolf idiots that were at the meeting, people knew these wolves had been released. and loudly spoke that. The minority plan is not going to be a part of wolf recovery. This was the plan that the ranchers put together, spent hours talking through, with plenty of honest hard work. POOF! It's out the window! They said that it did not work with their plan for viable packs of wolves. Okanogan County, (they were told by both the County Commissioner and a commission member) are preparing to sue them for several county and state laws that they have ignored and violated. The county commission was outraged that the WDFW totally has ignored working with Okanogan County in their wolf planning. I guess WDFW believes that they are above those laws. They were told since they couldn't seem to manage the game herds that they have now worth a damn, how did they expect to manage a predator like the wolf. They have three biologists who are just now "getting some training on wolves."
Many very good questions were asked last night. A panel member of the WDFW acknowledged that wolves may attack or kill your dogs, (with no compensation), and an audience member called out and said, "Hell, these wolves will EAT your dogs!" He said he trapped wolves in Alaska and found wolves in his traps that other wolves had eaten. Everytime the 3-SSS was mentioned, there was enthusiastic agreement throughout the room. If WDFW doesn't give Washington a wolf plan that WA can live with, they are going to be in for one hell of a fight and the people will be taking over wolf management in their own way.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on November 10, 2009, 08:59:23 AM
Post by: TEX-X on November 10, 2009, 09:32:39 AM
Post by: luvtohnt on November 10, 2009, 10:11:26 AM
Brandon
Post by: jackelope on November 10, 2009, 10:23:23 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 10, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
I also think he has very valid arguments regarding the fact that this is going to get crammed down our throats and that the whole process is just a way to say that the public was involved. It's obvious that the outcome has already been planned by WDFW. Our only hope is that enough WDFW Commissioners will side with public sentiments since they are the ones who will approve the final plan.
It is worth everyones time to write the WDFW Commissioners and plead for the "Minority Position". Please remember these Commissioners do not necessarily agree with all the details that the WDFW has presented.
Post by: luvtohnt on November 10, 2009, 10:56:59 AM
Brandon
Post by: bearpaw on November 10, 2009, 11:32:23 AM
Post by: wolfbait on November 10, 2009, 12:10:33 PM
It is not my intention to "put a foul taste" in anyone's mouth, or to dissuade them from attending any meetings. Your observed discrepancies are your beliefs and opinions, and you are certainly entitled to them. It was also not my intention to attempt to convince anyone of anything. I only wanted to report the spirit and general consensus of the very large group attending the meeting. Your assessment and accusation that those attending, "...mostly people thinking they had a real argument, but it was just uneducated, un-sourced, mis-information [sp] that makes the public look out of touch..." could not be more incorrect. People were highly educated, involved, well-prepared individuals with what they presented. Several members of the Wolf Working Group attended and spoke. The Okanogan County Commissioner attended and spoke, along with a member of the Commission. Mr. Asmussen and Dal Dagnun of the Cattlemen's Association both spoke. Dal spoke of the Minority Plan and questioned why, after all the long hours of work and discussion, the plan was totally disregarding the inclusion of this option. He strongly and intelligently voiced his disappointment, and it was NOT to "stir emotions." The three-minute restriction was unrealistic, and to allow for more discussion, the earlier presentation of the plan could have been shortened as all attending were well read regarding the plan. By the way, the meeting ending significantly earlier than the allotted time.
Of course, the urgency and frustration of this very serious issue stimulated some comments. However, unlike your accusation that "they should be thrown out because there was no real relevance to the discussion..." again, is in error. All the attendees conducted themselves in a respectful manner. There are many who are expressing their deep concerns with feeling because they have already experienced serious financial losses, and their very livelihood and welfare are being impacted by this issue. These discussions are valid, intelligent, informed, prepared, and should be received with courtesy and consideration. The panel did this admirably. Your accusation that I have a lack of respect for Harriet Allen is also in error. My apology for my bit of sarcasm, but it was not directed toward Harriet. You are wrong in your accusation that I have a distaste that a "woman ran the meeting." It is obvious that she has done a lot of work and believes in what she is doing. I respect that, and you are belaboring a point that does not have any validity. She did an admirable job in a difficult setting. When I reference the WDFW Plan, that is not a personal target aiming.
The wolves are with us, the plan will move forward, and those of us who have very valid concerns have done our best to alert and inform. It is now time to write to those politically involved, to put our heads together to see how we can make this as workable as possible with the fewest tragedies, and to have a spirit of acceptance of the impact this is having and will have on the people of Washington.
The information presented to the public in this meeting was as inaccurate and one-sided as expected. The false information and inaccurate data regarding the wolves in the Methow continues to be a valid point for real concern. Your assessments and accusations are simply way off target. ;)
Post by: jackelope on November 10, 2009, 12:18:42 PM
did they really talk about wolves affecting Dall sheep herds in Wa?? or was that a typo?
if Harriet Allen didn't run the meeting, then there'd be folks complaining that the EIS project manager wasn't there presenting info and running the meeting.
it's a win/lose situation either way you look at it. you won't satisfy everyone regardless of who runs the show.
Post by: Buckmark on November 10, 2009, 12:21:58 PM
Post by: wolfbait on November 10, 2009, 12:30:08 PM
my guess would be that the 3 minute limit was an attempt to prevent the meeting lasting 4 days. if everyone could speak in a meeting like that for as long as they wanted to, you'd have been there for days.
did they really talk about wolves affecting Dall sheep herds in Wa?? or was that a typo?
if Harriet Allen didn't run the meeting, then there'd be folks complaining that the EIS project manager wasn't there presenting info and running the meeting.
it's a win/lose situation either way you look at it. you won't satisfy everyone regardless of who runs the show.
Yep, I agree with you on the EIS project manager running the meeting. There was no typo on the Dall sheep. There is a small Dall sheep herd and they acknowledged that. He did exactly reply, "They will get eaten."
Post by: bearpaw on November 10, 2009, 12:39:22 PM
It is important to understand that the WDFW recommendations must be apoproved by the Commission which is composed of citizens. These citizens have on many occassion been influenced by public testimony. The WDFW does not always get everything exactly the way they want it.
Keep writing letters to the Commission, it is important for them to know that the public expects reasonable wolf numbers in the plan.
Post by: luvtohnt on November 10, 2009, 02:24:07 PM
luvtohunt:
It is not my intention to "put a foul taste" in anyone's mouth, or to dissuade them from attending any meetings. Your observed discrepancies are your beliefs and opinions, and you are certainly entitled to them. It was also not my intention to attempt to convince anyone of anything. I only wanted to report the spirit and general consensus of the very large group attending the meeting. Your assessment and accusation that those attending, "...mostly people thinking they had a real argument, but it was just uneducated, un-sourced, mis-information [sp] that makes the public look out of touch..." could not be more incorrect. People were highly educated, involved, well-prepared individuals with what they presented. Several members of the Wolf Working Group attended and spoke. The Okanogan County Commissioner attended and spoke, along with a member of the Commission. Mr. Asmussen and Dal Dagnun of the Cattlemen's Association both spoke. Dal spoke of the Minority Plan and questioned why, after all the long hours of work and discussion, the plan was totally disregarding the inclusion of this option. He strongly and intelligently voiced his disappointment, and it was NOT to "stir emotions." The three-minute restriction was unrealistic, and to allow for more discussion, the earlier presentation of the plan could have been shortened as all attending were well read regarding the plan. By the way, the meeting ending significantly earlier than the allotted time.
Of course, the urgency and frustration of this very serious issue stimulated some comments. However, unlike your accusation that "they should be thrown out because there was no real relevance to the discussion..." again, is in error. All the attendees conducted themselves in a respectful manner. There are many who are expressing their deep concerns with feeling because they have already experienced serious financial losses, and their very livelihood and welfare are being impacted by this issue. These discussions are valid, intelligent, informed, prepared, and should be received with courtesy and consideration. The panel did this admirably. Your accusation that I have a lack of respect for Harriet Allen is also in error. My apology for my bit of sarcasm, but it was not directed toward Harriet. You are wrong in your accusation that I have a distaste that a "woman ran the meeting." It is obvious that she has done a lot of work and believes in what she is doing. I respect that, and you are belaboring a point that does not have any validity. She did an admirable job in a difficult setting. When I reference the WDFW Plan, that is not a personal target aiming.
The wolves are with us, the plan will move forward, and those of us who have very valid concerns have done our best to alert and inform. It is now time to write to those politically involved, to put our heads together to see how we can make this as workable as possible with the fewest tragedies, and to have a spirit of acceptance of the impact this is having and will have on the people of Washington.
The information presented to the public in this meeting was as inaccurate and one-sided as expected. The false information and inaccurate data regarding the wolves in the Methow continues to be a valid point for real concern. Your assessments and accusations are simply way off target. ;)
I stand corrected as I was not there. I can only imagine that there were some people there as with the Yakima meeting who spoke solely on emotion e.g. "what about my dog in the backcountry", or "these things are a nuisance we need to kill them all". If there was none of that then great you had a successful meeting.
My second quote you took out of context, I said the statements like the rounding them up and moving them to the I-5 corridor should be thrown out, not all statements. There is no constructive value to a statement like that. Now that you got me straightened out :P Can you please provide me with the link to the study by a USFW biologist you posted awhile ago about the problem with counting breeding pairs vs. counting all wolves. I would like to use that in my letter to the commission.
Brandon
P.S. Next time I will call you out via pm so I don't fill up your thread with useless bickering.
Post by: jackelope on November 10, 2009, 02:46:55 PM
Quote
P.S. Next time I will call you out via pm so I don't fill up your thread with useless bickering.
Wolfbait is used to useless bickering by now.
;)
Post by: MtnMuley on November 10, 2009, 04:29:31 PM
Post by: Axle on November 10, 2009, 07:07:21 PM
As far as putting them up and down the I5 corridor - I say that is where they should go. It is the people in this area that have a stupid infatuation with these killing machines. Problem is, they don't want them in their yard; they want them in somebody else's yard. They just want to be able to drive out to the country to see all the fuzzy little wolves running around frolicking in the sun and playing with nature. After all - it won't cost them anything if it is done like that. But when one of those dangerous mutts comes near town, it will be a panic! Schools will lock down! It will be on evening news and the honorable game department will come to the rescue to put the animal back out where it belongs. It will be fitted with a radio collar to track its every move. This will put the public's mind at ease and put the game department in the glorious spotlight. And the fearless news person will tell us that the wolf was coming in to town because horrible people have invaded its territory. But don't worry, the spokesperson for the game department will assure everyone in the city that their children will be safe for now. The wolf will then be taken out and dumped next to a farm where there is lots of cattle and sheep and goats to eat but the public will be told that it was returned to its "natural habitat".
This is easy to predict. Just look at what has happened with cougars. The city folks don't want us hunting them with hounds. Heck!, they don't want us hunting them at all but when one comes near or into town what do they do? They lock down parks, schools, green belts etc. etc. and then the gamies have to come in and rescue the city folks. It makes the news too. Why this is news worthy is beyond me. After all, they voted for this and yet don't want what they voted for once they get it. Then the cat gets returned to its "natural habitat" for somebody else to have to deal with and the news personell tell us the problem is "human encroachment". Bad humans! You should know better!
I have a relative that was absolutely infatuated with wolves after seeing them in a popular movie. He then obtained a wolf/dog hybrid to satisfy his dream and told people the ever popular lie that wolves have never attacked a human. I told him he was wrong. One of my neighbors (at that time) had to defend himself and his sister in Minnesota in the '30s from a wolf. It attacked them and he had to kill the wolf. The hybrid my relative got was trouble in a big way so he got rid of it and got another one. The second was even more trouble and it cost them a small fortune from the damage it did. He and his wife lost the infatuation with wolves.
There is an agenda and I doubt the meetings have anything to do with 'them' being interested in what the public really has to say. If so, this would not continue the way it is. The vast majority of the public wants nothing to do with wolves coming back.
Post by: mulehunter on November 10, 2009, 07:09:07 PM
They just want to push US away from them and tell us ALL LIES!
This picture was take by Biologlist most recently, U KNOW WHAT they start to use "Black and White" Picture from now on. Because they dont want people to know what Color each Wolf in pics Because I HAVE COLLECTED ALL PICTURES OF TRAILSCAMERA THAT I KNOW MORE THAN THEM and they dont want to tell us how many they KNEW IT that they have more than 19 or more but FOR SURE two packs! Thats Explains why Biologlist is trying to AVOID everything AS POSSIBLE!
Go figure!
Mulehunter ;)
Post by: WDFW-SUX on November 10, 2009, 07:27:07 PM
Post by: Axle on November 10, 2009, 07:28:34 PM
Can you see the other one?
Post by: mulehunter on November 10, 2009, 07:44:51 PM
I see two wolves.
Can you see the other one?
:chuckle: People dont have to BELIEVE ME OR THEM THE WDFW, Well u can look at My TrailCamera pic of mother's NIPPLES in Carlton, Wa, How many PUPS in WOOD today after two half years of TrailCamera that I have collected, More and More pups growing.
Mulehunter ;)
Post by: wolfbait on November 10, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Post by: Axle on November 10, 2009, 09:22:28 PM
can you see the other one? Hard to spot.
Post by: andrew_12gauge on November 10, 2009, 09:38:04 PM
Post by: mossback91 on November 10, 2009, 09:41:10 PM
yea i see the second one
:iamwithstupid:
Post by: andrew_12gauge on November 10, 2009, 09:43:06 PM
yea i see the second one
:iamwithstupid:
what up with that moss, i let phool use me for a test dummy earlier cant get back into chat now
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 12, 2009, 07:46:34 AM
Post by: CoryTDF on November 12, 2009, 08:30:02 AM
Thanks for a concise and unbiased report wolfbait. I can't believe the WDFW did not want to hear what you had to say...weird.
At least he is out there voicing an opinion. That is more than i can say for myself. I would like to go to these meetings but work always gets in the way and most of the time they are to far to drive in an afternoon. I give props to anybody who is going to the meetings and voicing an opinion about our wolf problem. It's more than most of us can say.
Post by: wolfbait on November 12, 2009, 09:21:38 AM
Thanks for a concise and unbiased report wolfbait. I can't believe the WDFW did not want to hear what you had to say...weird.
Here ya go wacoyote, The wolves will not effect the big game herds of Washington, they are a shy critter.
Hope you are happy now. :rolleyes:
Post by: Little Dave on November 12, 2009, 10:15:00 AM
Whatever option in the plan is selected, the document does not need to be an opinion piece on hunting. It was one of the primary points that I made in my statement.
One problem with the "let's teach them a lesson" approach (releasing wolves along the I-5 corridor to increase wolf/human incidents) is that people are already biased toward the urban environment. They stay inside. They watch the Weather Channel instead of the weather. Of particular interests is the youth and all their stupid technical gadgets draining precious moments of their formative years away.
Face value, it sounds like a just retaliatory action. For stewardship though, it is not.
Post by: MtnMuley on November 13, 2009, 06:54:08 PM
Thanks for a concise and unbiased report wolfbait. I can't believe the WDFW did not want to hear what you had to say...weird.How come every post wolfbait makes on the wolf issue, you have something negative to say about his efforts. :dunno: It gets old.