Post by: fishnate on January 24, 2011, 12:01:32 PM
http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/01/21/Calling+BS+On+A+Wolf+Story/ (http://www.nwsportsmanmag.com/articles/2011/01/21/Calling+BS+On+A+Wolf+Story/)
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 12:14:16 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2011, 12:22:56 PM
I'm thinking since everyone will be running to that thread mentioned, I better check my spelling in my posts... :chuckle:
Has anyone told him he doesn't have to read wolfbaits posts.... :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on January 24, 2011, 12:57:24 PM
I would not Say Just Wolves but Spotted owls, Salmon, Suckerfish,bald eagle and many other animals that are used to trample individual rights... I don't pick "Fringe Issues" as a weapon, someone else did! I want to build a house or shop on MY property, or do some logging on MY land and I'm told NO because of a Eagle is nesting in my tree what kind of logic is that?
Logging accelerated to a break neck pace while the fight to close logging down because of the spotted owl... Much of it was rushed to beat the litigation. Land that should have let be for 5-10 years we logged off for fear they would never be able to again.
I guess I'll have to high fence my property with "No Tresspassing" signs, so I can keep the States property "Wildlife" from tresspassing on my property and making it less usable or valuable!
Do i think the WDFW planted wolves? I don't think so, BUT if SCI can make an end run around the WDFW with little or no conversation, what makes you think an another independent group couldn't make an endrun around the WDFW by doing it on the sly with a Wink and a Nod? Who would do such a thing? Defenders of wildlife? Wolfhaven? I don't know and don't have any proof so I'll just have to satisfied to be a Blowhard! :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2011, 01:11:04 PM
The more I think about it, the more it seems that the author has something against wolfbait. It appears he is using the magazine to make a big deal about wolfbait. I'm questioning how professional that may be. :dunno:
I for one have been waiting for wolfbait to show his evidence, but that seems like a bit more than just questioning wolfbaits evidence. I guess one big thing I see wrong with the blog is that the author gives wolfbait absolutely no credit for all the solid information wolfbait has provided.
I must say, wolfbait has also probably provided more solid information about what is happening in various other states than anyone else on this forum. :twocents:
I can't remember the author's identity on here?
Post by: luvtohnt on January 24, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
Do i think the WDFW planted wolves? I don't think so, BUT if SCI can make an end run around the WDFW with little or no conversation, what makes you think an another independent group couldn't make an endrun around the WDFW by doing it on the sly with a Wink and a Nod? Who would do such a thing? Defenders of wildlife? Wolfhaven? I don't know and don't have any proof so I'll just have to satisfied to be a Blowhard! :bash:
You have to remember that SCI placed animals on the property of a sovergn nation, so they could get away with it. If the lookout pack was on a reservation then I would definatly raise an eyebrow. However I do not think the state would risk the massive lawsuits to just wink and nod at some private organizatiin to put wolves where ever they feel they should be.
Man and I thought I was hard on Wolfbait. Does anyone know who wrote that article?
Brandon
Post by: Special T on January 24, 2011, 01:37:10 PM
:tinfoil:
Destruction of logging and construction equipment... "Liberating" Mink from fur farms and other animals from testing facilities... Earth liberation front, Animal liberation front, Environmental Rangers, The Moles, The Grey Wolves, Westcountry Wildlife Cell, Eco-Animal Defense Unit and Radical Brigades for Ecological Defence.
A wink and nod is also know as Plausible Deniability... It mean you might have a theory, but you can prove nothing. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2011, 01:41:11 PM
Do i think the WDFW planted wolves? I don't think so, BUT if SCI can make an end run around the WDFW with little or no conversation, what makes you think an another independent group couldn't make an endrun around the WDFW by doing it on the sly with a Wink and a Nod? Who would do such a thing? Defenders of wildlife? Wolfhaven? I don't know and don't have any proof so I'll just have to satisfied to be a Blowhard! :bash:
You have to remember that SCI placed animals on the property of a sovergn nation, so they could get away with it. If the lookout pack was on a reservation then I would definatly raise an eyebrow. However I do not think the state would risk the massive lawsuits to just wink and nod at some private organizatiin to put wolves where ever they feel they should be.
Man and I thought I was hard on Wolfbait. Does anyone know who wrote that article?
Brandon
I agree with you Brandon, I don't think WDFW would plant wolves. But, who else could have planted wolves without WDFW even knowing, and then people would think it's WDFW planting them. So there you go, it's very possible someone is planting wolves. Maybe wolfbait did see a white van releasing wolves? At this point no one can prove he didn't. :dunno:
It's true that the wolf issue is not settled in WA and we don't have the problems of Idaho and Montana YET.
However, it seems the author plays down the importance of wolves moving onto our landscape. I would like to remind the author that the WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES have sent off a resolution asking the federal government to DELIST THE GRAY WOLF AND RESTORE MANAGEMENT TO THE STATES.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,68393.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,68393.0.html)
Additionally I would remind the author that certain local governments are becoming just as fed up as wolfbait with the lack of federal action on wolves:
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,68254.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,68254.0.html)
I for one don't think I like the position NWS Magazine has taken as it clearly plays down the importance of the wolf issue and makes it appear that anyone questioning allowing large numbers of wolves on the landscape is somehow a wacko.
Maybe I will put that on the front page of my wolf page when I update it... :chuckle:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 24, 2011, 01:47:59 PM
You have to remember that SCI placed animals on the property of a sovergn nation, so they could get away with it. If the lookout pack was on a reservation then I would definatly raise an eyebrow. However I do not think the state would risk the massive lawsuits to just wink and nod at some private organizatiin to put wolves where ever they feel they should be.
Yeah, this makes me wonder how much a pro-wolf group (Defenders) would have to pay the tribes to release a pack of wolves on each reservation. Yikes. The doggies might get here sooner rather than later.
Post by: Northwest Sportsman on January 24, 2011, 02:08:51 PM
Dale, I have not overlooked the seriousness of wolves moving into the Northwest. Here's a sampling of more straight-news stories I've put online going back into May 2009, when our Web site was activated.
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/3-wolf-bills-in-wa-legislature/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/3-wolf-bills-in-wa-legislature/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/sw-wa-rep-no-reason-to-force-the-wolves-here/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/sw-wa-rep-no-reason-to-force-the-wolves-here/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/anderson-outlines-wa-wolves-at-house-hearing/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/anderson-outlines-wa-wolves-at-house-hearing/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/rural-legislators-question-wdfw%E2%80%99s-wolf-info-land-plans/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/rural-legislators-question-wdfw%E2%80%99s-wolf-info-land-plans/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/wolf-plan-comments-out/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/wolf-plan-comments-out/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/rmef-to-mt-quit-talking-settlement-with-wolf-litigators/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/rmef-to-mt-quit-talking-settlement-with-wolf-litigators/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/usfws-on-the-way-forward-for-idaho-and-wolves/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/usfws-on-the-way-forward-for-idaho-and-wolves/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/another-way-forward-on-wolves-hunters-pressure-wy/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/another-way-forward-on-wolves-hunters-pressure-wy/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/frustrated-angry-disappointed-at-judges-wolf-ruling/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/frustrated-angry-disappointed-at-judges-wolf-ruling/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/rmef-rips-national-wolf-recovery-petition/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/rmef-rips-national-wolf-recovery-petition/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/id-mt-move-to-curb-wolf-populations/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/id-mt-move-to-curb-wolf-populations/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/northern-rockies-wolves-back-in-court/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/northern-rockies-wolves-back-in-court/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/rmef-blasts-defenders/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/rmef-blasts-defenders/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/idaho-releases-wolf-hunt-stats/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/idaho-releases-wolf-hunt-stats/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/wolf-shot-just-east-of-wa-border/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/wolf-shot-just-east-of-wa-border/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/remote-cameras-watch-for-more-wa-wolves/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/remote-cameras-watch-for-more-wa-wolves/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/rmef-fires-back-on-wolf-groups-disingenuous-use-of-its-data/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/rmef-fires-back-on-wolf-groups-disingenuous-use-of-its-data/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/wolves-a-tough-hunt-idahoans-find/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/wolves-a-tough-hunt-idahoans-find/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/wolf-meetings-wrap-up-in-wenatchee/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/wolf-meetings-wrap-up-in-wenatchee/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/want-wolves-take-em-i-5-corridor-rancher/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/want-wolves-take-em-i-5-corridor-rancher/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/more-wolves-not-less-seattle-says/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/more-wolves-not-less-seattle-says/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/aberdeen-wolves-unwelcome/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/aberdeen-wolves-unwelcome/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/why-wolf-meetings-during-rifle-hunts/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/why-wolf-meetings-during-rifle-hunts/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/hunters-speak-out-at-yakima-wolf-meeting/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/hunters-speak-out-at-yakima-wolf-meeting/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/second-wolf-pack-in-washington/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/second-wolf-pack-in-washington/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/nw-wolf-watch-more-methow-pups-or-wolves-hit-wallowas/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/nw-wolf-watch-more-methow-pups-or-wolves-hit-wallowas/)
http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/twisp-wolves-on-the-move-east/ (http://nwsportsmanmag.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/twisp-wolves-on-the-move-east/)
I may have spoken a bit too broadly about "blowhard supporters," because I recognize there are genuine concerns as well as frustrations as wolves return to WA. But I don't think anyone else in this state has been providing more news coverage of the issue than I have.
My beef in that blog was with BS.
AW
NWS
Post by: Kyle84 on January 24, 2011, 02:11:30 PM
Post by: Bruce Hemming on January 24, 2011, 02:54:03 PM
Post by: 6x6in6 on January 24, 2011, 03:00:01 PM
The game department in Washington was caught even pictures taken of them releasing wolves. End of story.
Here we go again!!
You too can back up this CLAIM with pictures, can't you?
I didn't think so......... :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2011, 03:10:01 PM
Thanks for replying Andy, I thought you might be the author, but I wasn't sure. I have not been watching all your stories and I now see you have been reporting a lot about wolves. THANKYOU very much for doing that. Hunters depend on news sources like yours to deliver news that is important to hunters.
I do still think you have been unfairly harsh on Wolfbait. Granted many people doubt some of his claims, but I for one will not call BS until I know it's BS. In my previous post I laid out a very possible scenario in which wolfbait may have actually seen something to support his claims of wolves being released.
Has anyone done an accounting of all wolf/hybrid breeders in Washington and how many wolves they have raised and can account for?
Now take a look at the WDFW wolf pages and you will see Defenders of Wildlife propaganda. They have made it much harder to find, but it is still there. No wonder hunters do not trust WDFW.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf)
I will agree that there is a lot questionable stories about wolves and it would be better if there were less stories like that. But that is just human nature for the stories to be there and especially when WDFW has Defenders of Wildlife propaganda on their website and they continue to downplay the impact of wolves as they do, it's additional fuel for the fire.
WDFW should present the facts as IDFG is now slowly beginning to do. Then there would be more trust. And don't think for a minute that IDFG started presenting more factual wolf info on their own. There has been tremendous pressure from the public and Idaho legislators to get the facts out.
I did notice that WDFW has changed their position on several things in regards to wolves, including wolf worms. Instead of saying these worms pose no threat as they used to more or less say, now they direct you to a factual report about how many wolves are infected in Idaho and Montana. So the fact that people are demanding facts is starting to pay off. In the beginning wolfbait was right, the WDFW wolf plan looked like a Defenders playbook.
Back to the point, wolfbait has good reason to not trust WDFW and who knows whether he saw wolves released or not. Perhaps he could have been more reserved in his claims, but no one can argue, he certainly has helped inform a lot of unsuspecting people with some of the factual info he has provided to the forum about the impacts of wolves in other states.
I still think you were far to harsh in your blog without knowing for a fact that wolfbait doesn't have some kind of proof, sorry but that's my opinion. :twocents:
Post by: luvtohnt on January 24, 2011, 03:27:25 PM
The whole point about wolves is it base on junk science and criminal Fraud.Please explain how it is junk science and fraud.
Sure only a moron believe that LIE I found over 100 people killed in North America by wolves.
Link or documentation please.
The game department in Washington was caught even pictures taken of them releasing wolves. End of story.
You have proof? Lets see it!
Now if you had real biologist that actually care about hunters they would in fact pass a law outlawing these illegal Canadian wolves and ban them from your state.
Why would they really care about hunters, their job is to study and manage wildlife, not be all sentimental to the feelings of hunters. Yeah a hunter partially pays their wage but wildlife management is not all about hunters. It is about providing the best quality environment for the animals to thrive!
Now take a look at the WDFW wolf pages and you will see Defenders of Wildlife propaganda. They have made it much harder to find, but it is still there. No wonder hunters do not trust WDFW.Of course they will have links all over the WDFW pages, they are the ones forking over the money for loss due to depredation, and offering assistance in that funny stuff they think keeps wolves away.If I was in that kind of business and was fronting lots of money as they have I would demand links to my site on theirs as well.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf)
Brandon, the author would be one Andy Walgamott, editor of Northwest Sportsman magazine -- yours truly.
Thanks for letting me know.
Brandon
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 03:44:59 PM
The game department in Washington was caught even pictures taken of them releasing wolves. End of story.
Are these the same pics that Rockholm posted or passed on to another member on here in the past?
I suspect they are. We've already figured out what the real source of those pics is.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2011, 03:53:09 PM
Now take a look at the WDFW wolf pages and you will see Defenders of Wildlife propaganda. They have made it much harder to find, but it is still there. No wonder hunters do not trust WDFW.Of course they will have links all over the WDFW pages, they are the ones forking over the money for loss due to depredation, and offering assistance in that funny stuff they think keeps wolves away.If I was in that kind of business and was fronting lots of money as they have I would demand links to my site on theirs as well.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf)
luvtohnt, if you look at Idaho as soon as the wolves were overpopulated and they tried to manage them, Defenders shut off the dollars for depredation. THAT IS FACT
Honestly, I think you need to get off their KoolAid, I can't believe you are sucked in by that ploy....
Post by: mulehunter on January 24, 2011, 03:57:09 PM
world is falling apart everyday. It is so hard for one person want everyone to agree eachother wont happen. Now we have million different of side feeling. So we all have to let govt handle it. And we still fight for what we believe in.
Mulehunter.
Post by: mulehunter on January 24, 2011, 04:13:40 PM
Now take a look at the WDFW wolf pages and you will see Defenders of Wildlife propaganda. They have made it much harder to find, but it is still there. No wonder hunters do not trust WDFW.Of course they will have links all over the WDFW pages, they are the ones forking over the money for loss due to depredation, and offering assistance in that funny stuff they think keeps wolves away.If I was in that kind of business and was fronting lots of money as they have I would demand links to my site on theirs as well.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/livestock_wolves08.pdf)
luvtohnt, if you look at Idaho as soon as the wolves were overpopulated and they tried to manage them, Defenders shut off the dollars for depredation. THAT IS FACT
Honestly, I think you need to get off their KoolAid, I can't believe you are sucked in by that ploy....
I remember the rancher name larry who lost their cows to wolves while ago. They did have gamewarden confirmed wolves kill. And I do have pics of him as gamedept behind death cow of mother and missing calf gone to pups. But biologlist and his group disagree with this gamewarden. That's Why wolves are protected. :bash: so are we all not important to those dept of wdfw but they keep $ in pocket. Because biologlist is above gamewarden. Biologlist said it is not wolf kill. Go figure.
Mulehunter. >:(
Post by: boneaddict on January 24, 2011, 04:18:08 PM
At this point it doesn't matter how they got there. I think we should all be concerned that THEY ARE HERE. I don't need evidence to prove to me where they are at. I really don't need to prove it to anyone. One of these days you all are going to wake up and go, where'd my hunting rights go.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2011, 04:25:12 PM
I wonder if anyone has proof or photos of bass being planted in Chopaka lake. This has nothing to do with the WDFW. It has all to do with a special interest group that wants bass to be in that lake. Is it so far fetched to believe that a group with far reaching tenticles and deep pockets couldn't help the wolf re-population along.
At this point it doesn't matter how they got there. I think we should all be concerned that THEY ARE HERE. I don't need evidence to prove to me where they are at. I really don't need to prove it to anyone. One of these days you all are going to wake up and go, where'd my hunting rights go.
Very well explained....
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 04:27:33 PM
The whole point about wolves is it base on junk science and criminal Fraud. In Michigan the USFWS illegally trap wolves in MN planted them in Michigan admitted to doing this for 2 years then change the story to nope they magically migrated there in the summer. LMAO but most people have no clue that is lie. Then we exposed the biggest lie ever told on wolves there has never been a documented wolf attack. Sure only a moron believe that LIE I found over 100 people killed in North America by wolves. The game department in Washington was caught even pictures taken of them releasing wolves. End of story. Now if you had real biologist that actually care about hunters they would in fact pass a law outlawing these illegal Canadian wolves and ban them from your state. If you don't get these killers out of your state right now your hunting is over in 15 years, ranchers will be forced out of business dogs ripped to shreds right in front of people.
Bruce...
Is this the release photos you're talking about?
Post by: mulehunter on January 24, 2011, 04:28:24 PM
I wonder if anyone has proof or photos of bass being planted in Chopaka lake. This has nothing to do with the WDFW. It has all to do with a special interest group that wants bass to be in that lake. Is it so far fetched to believe that a group with far reaching tenticles and deep pockets couldn't help the wolf re-population along.
At this point it doesn't matter how they got there. I think we should all be concerned that THEY ARE HERE. I don't need evidence to prove to me where they are at. I really don't need to prove it to anyone. One of these days you all are going to wake up and go, where'd my hunting rights go.
Very well explained....
X4
Mulehunter
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on January 24, 2011, 04:34:00 PM
At this point it doesn't matter how they got there. I think we should all be concerned that THEY ARE HERE. I don't need evidence to prove to me where they are at. I really don't need to prove it to anyone. One of these days you all are going to wake up and go, where'd my hunting rights go.
Example:
How many have noticed that we don't have near as many Salmon fishing opportunities as we did before California Sea Lions and Orca's were listed endangered?
-Steve
We have a problem here in BC, Canada Also. The wolves have moved as far down south here at the town of Mission which is in the lowermainland.
Kyle, can you send me some links/documentation about Wolves being so far south to Mission? Anything south of the Frasier river? Any in the area around Hope?
-Steve
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 24, 2011, 04:41:23 PM
This site/threads sure have gotten hostile. Maybe some people aren't getting any?
Post by: Lowedog on January 24, 2011, 04:45:14 PM
I wonder if anyone has proof or photos of bass being planted in Chopaka lake. This has nothing to do with the WDFW. It has all to do with a special interest group that wants bass to be in that lake. Is it so far fetched to believe that a group with far reaching tenticles and deep pockets couldn't help the wolf re-population along.
At this point it doesn't matter how they got there. I think we should all be concerned that THEY ARE HERE. I don't need evidence to prove to me where they are at. I really don't need to prove it to anyone. One of these days you all are going to wake up and go, where'd my hunting rights go.
That is a fine comparison you made. The glaring difference in this particular situation is that there are claims that WDFW is planting wolves all across the state and you know who is claiming to have proof.
I don't find it so hard to believe that Defenders or the like would go as far as to transplant wolves to WA but when someone starts making the accusations that WDFW is aiding and abetting then I start wondering if they are wearing their tin foil hat.
I think most on here are in agreement that wolves are in WA. Maybe not how many and definitely not how they got here but we can agree we have them and we would like a strong and practical management plan.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 24, 2011, 05:16:21 PM
I wonder if anyone has proof or photos of bass being planted in Chopaka lake. This has nothing to do with the WDFW. It has all to do with a special interest group that wants bass to be in that lake. Is it so far fetched to believe that a group with far reaching tenticles and deep pockets couldn't help the wolf re-population along.
At this point it doesn't matter how they got there. I think we should all be concerned that THEY ARE HERE. I don't need evidence to prove to me where they are at. I really don't need to prove it to anyone. One of these days you all are going to wake up and go, where'd my hunting rights go.
Agreed
That is a fine comparison you made. The glaring difference in this particular situation is that there are claims that WDFW is planting wolves all across the state and you know who is claiming to have proof.
I don't find it so hard to believe that Defenders or the like would go as far as to transplant wolves to WA but when someone starts making the accusations that WDFW is aiding and abetting then I start wondering if they are wearing their tin foil hat.
I think most on here are in agreement that wolves are in WA. Maybe not how many and definitely not how they got here but we can agree we have them and we would like a strong and practical management plan.
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 05:28:53 PM
Post by: Curly on January 24, 2011, 05:31:27 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 05:36:18 PM
The wolf topic sure is a hot one isn't it??? One message board I used to visit a lot before this one started up won't even let members discuss wolves (or sealions) because of how heated it gets at times. :o
I would not be opposed to that.
:dunno:
Post by: Special T on January 24, 2011, 05:40:20 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 24, 2011, 05:41:41 PM
Post by: Lowedog on January 24, 2011, 05:42:17 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 24, 2011, 05:45:22 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2011, 05:48:01 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 05:49:14 PM
CAN WE ALSO BAN NATIVE, LIBERAL, OBAMA, HUNTING, PETA, LEGISLATOR, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, ALL FOUR LETTER WORDS, RACISM, POACHING, ROAD HUNTING, LAZY, LONG RANGE SHOOTING, DYI VS GUIDING, WDFW, TAXES, AND SHOUTING?????
Sure...if that makes everyone happy.
Thats what everyone wants I guess, no controversy, no drama, no questioning anyone, etc.
Whatever you guys want I'm game.
I don't know how the information would get out, Special T....
:dunno:
Post by: Curly on January 24, 2011, 05:51:17 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2011, 05:53:55 PM
Wenatchee, I agree with you for a change! :chuckle: Seriously, open discussion is what a forum like his should be about. If you don't like a topic, don't click on it.
You guys were starting to scare me..... :chuckle:
I agree, if we can't talk openly, might as well move to an oppressive country.
Wolves is probably going to get hotter before it's over, sorry for being the bearer of bad news. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 06:19:33 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on January 24, 2011, 06:54:16 PM
Wenatchee, I agree with you for a change! :chuckle: Seriously, open discussion is what a forum like his should be about. If you don't like a topic, don't click on it.
You guys were starting to scare me..... :chuckle:
I agree, if we can't talk openly, might as well move to an oppressive country.
Wolves is probably going to get hotter before it's over, sorry for being the bearer of bad news. :twocents:
lokiedog if you get to know me you will understand my humor. You'd probably see we would not disagree on most of these topics. Or at least we have a lot in common. :)
Dale, we don't need to move to another country. But once discussion is not free people tend to move on. It would be nice if people could work on civil discussion without flaming.
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2011, 07:55:22 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 08:24:21 PM
After all the talk, I just hope it has some real substance to stand on. I really have no idea what they are doing, but it would be nice to see something solid.
I agree Dale.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 24, 2011, 08:28:51 PM
After all the talk, I just hope it has some real substance to stand on. I really have no idea what they are doing, but it would be nice to see something solid.
I agree Dale.
something is wrong here i'm starting to see these words alot lately "i agree"
ARE WE GONNA DIE???
:yike:
Post by: Lowedog on January 24, 2011, 08:59:50 PM
ARE WE GONNA DIE???
:yike:
Yes!!!! The wolves are gonna kill us all and there is nothing you can do about it!! :yike: :yike:
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 09:44:04 PM
After all the talk, I just hope it has some real substance to stand on. I really have no idea what they are doing, but it would be nice to see something solid.
I agree Dale.
something is wrong here i'm starting to see these words alot lately "i agree"
ARE WE GONNA DIE???
:yike:
I usually agree with what Bearpaw has to say. Logic and good sound reasoning go a long way with me.
Post by: Special T on January 24, 2011, 09:47:38 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2011, 09:51:32 PM
I thought you were done with this topic until you saw proof Jack? :stirthepot:
The topic I posted about was not regarding wolves, it was regarding agreeing with Dale.
:yike:
Post by: mulehunter on January 24, 2011, 09:55:01 PM
Mulehunter.
Post by: Special T on January 24, 2011, 10:01:43 PM
Post by: mathews_shooter4life on January 25, 2011, 08:44:11 AM
1) junk science and fraud ...
The conception of a “utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity” is such intellectual rubbish, that it raises the hackles on my neck. I am glad to say, however, that Charles Elton, the father of modern ecology, had a similar view to mine, namely that ecosystems are expressions of positive feed back loops and thus “ungoverned” and stochastic in their expressions and consequently ever changing. “Ecosystems” even raise the question if they are systems, because there is nothing systematic in positive feed back. If you can understand why individuals are individuals, it is because they are controlled by negative feed back – negative! By contrast populations of organisms coming together in an ecosystem are never controlled – NEVER! – and are always subject to the whims and randomness of positive feed back. Know the difference between positive and negative feed back, and you are on the way of understanding both homeostasis in individuals and stochastic non-determinism in ecosystems. The “leave it alone” philosophy – if one can call it such – is a baseless faith, believing in a mythical “balance of nature”. It is worthless intellectually, ethically or morally – whatever the relation of ethics and morality. It is an expression of intellectual laziness, me-too ism, and a destructive force if expressed in policy. Like it or not we are the makers of our future today, and intellectually lazy, incompetent minds are no help for us in our crisis.
Valerius Geist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science.
Proof Wolf introduction of CL Occidentalis was concocted of junk science.
a) Why CLO? Because of just how eager Wolfaboo's are intending to take us (Rural residents, sport hunters, trappers, guides, outfitters, etc, etc, ) out of the picture for a future Y2Y predator sanctuary.
http://www.y2y.net/Default.aspx?cid=374&lang=1 (http://www.y2y.net/Default.aspx?cid=374&lang=1)
2)you want to see wolf attacks on human's eh? So here ya go....
http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html (http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html)
and,
"in the space of just three years (1849 – 1851), 260 adults and 110 children died because of wolves (Lazarevskii, 1876). Official statistics were kept of the cases. In the annual reports of the governors this information was concentrated in the table on the causes of death of the population into the column ”Killed by ...wild predators”. “Of all the 221 studied cases (attacks by non-rabid wolves 1820-1861) 73,4% of the children died, but only 13,5% of the adults."
so is this abundant proof wolves are dangerous to humans? Any attack upon human life by wolves is, in my book, completely unacceptable, let alone having our children becoming threatened because of some dipstick(s) liking the idea of having wolves (non native at best) in our region.
3) I don't have proof of Wdfg releasing wolves in cascades, however I have 1st hand knowledge of a group of people in Or. raising up and releasing wolf/hybrids throughout the cascades, even in Wa. They have been doing so for more then 20 years, ODFW hasn't said much about it other then they can do nothing to stop them. I personally contributed to there breeding stock (unknowingly of course) some 16+ years ago with a pair of wolves/hybrids I could no longer keep and gave them to a couple whom had a ranch and said they were breeders. I had no idea that this was there intent, or I would of had the big suckers put down. Male was 143 Lbs when I gave him away, and female was mean as hell with 1 green eye and 1 blue eye. They were cool dogs to own, but I learned they cannot be controlled like a family pet, and they both had a taste for livestock, and killed my horse with ease. I should of shot them right then and there, however, I thought at that time I could tame them down to be pets. My mistake.
4) It is not all about a job of studying and managing wildlife. Who in the heck let you believe that? Becoming a biologist, working for sportsmen whom are the backbone of why the job positions are available is surely the most important stance any fish and game official should take. We (sportsmen) are the reason we have had the abundant game populations that we experienced prior to CLO introduction into the lower 48. Fact of the matter is, if we want to get technical, most of the wages the F&G official receives are sportsmen generated. Without us sportsmen, F&G will have nothing to do in regards to when, where, why, and how many game animals are harvested. What?? you want it to be a free for all again like it was some 80 yrs ago?? No logic behind your statement what so ever... " Why would they really care about hunters, their job is to study and manage wildlife, not be all sentimental to the feelings of hunters. "
5) Who The heck do you support any way? If you think DOW are "forking" over monies to reimburse ranchers on there losses, that is just plain foolishness. DOW "WERE" paying out some to ranchers to help with losses, however, very, very few ranchers got any amount of money if at all, and it was monies DOW won from us Taxpayers in court, and received donations. How about they give up half of the millions they gained from us and put it into restoring our native wolves that were here prior to CLO introductions. Oregon may still have some of these very reclusive wolves.
Just so you make no mistake that this CLO introduced wolf does not belong here, how about some comparisons taken prior to and after introduction...
received e-mail...
> In response to your questions regarding the great disparity in levels of
> wolf depredation between our former resident wolves and the introduced Canadian
> Grey Wolf, let me attempt to clarify some of the historical issues that
> surround the work done by several counties in Idaho to document the Resident
> Wolves in the late 1980's.
> Starting in the early l980's attempts were being made by several Wildlife
> Agencies including Idaho Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Services to
> locate and monitor large predator species that were considered "threatened"
> or "endangered". A program was started to send questionaires to trappers and
> hunters asking for help in locating these animals, and signs were posted in
> public offices around the state seeking input from the public to determine if
> any of these species remained in the state and if so how many individuals were
> there. These programs came to be known as "The Wolf and Wolverine Hotlines". In
> reality there was a phone number to call that put you in contact with members
> of Idaho Fish and Game who would take the details of the public's sightings of
> these rare animals.
> It was in response to these efforts that counties in Central Idaho began
> to respond by sending correspondence and sightings to the Agencies involved. As
> the years passed in the 1980's a significant amount of data was collected by
> trappers, hunters, and Fish and Game officers to warrant full time research and
> monitoring of these species. As criterion to use for observing these species
> county residents were asked to look for numbers of individuals, sex, age, size
> of territory and behavioral qualities such as secretiveness, and recruitment
> numbers of young.
> During approximatley twelve years time, 1984-1995, much data using these
> criteria for observing Resident Wolves was collected and maps of the wolves
> territories and packs were created. During these years of observation, very
> consistent and difinitive behavioral and social traits became evident as this
> variety of wolf was observed. These traits would become all important in
> determining what the habitat and prey base this variety of wolf would need and
> the impacts it would have on our ungulate populations. A very important
> contribution to our ability to compare our variety of wolf to the introduced
> Canadian Grey Wolf was also a result of these years of observing the Resident
> Wolves in their prefered habitats.
> I will list the criterion used by the individuals involved in collecting
> data on the Pre-introduction Resident Wolves and then I will give a brief
> comparison to the same criterion as observed by all of us in the field as
> paticular to the Canadian Grey Wolf. Remember that really the most important
> issue to all of us now is the resulting impacts to our fragile ecosystems of
> one variety of wolf as compared to the other and its portent when deciding on
> effective wolf control measures.
>
> Pre-introduction Resident Wolves: (Wolves observed thru 1995 in Idaho)
>
> 1. Highly secretive behavior. Very sensitive to roads and highways.
> Largely nocturnal.
> 2. Usually found either as dispersed individuals or pairs.
> 3. Packing activity was very rare accept during months of Jan.-Feb.
> 4. Pack size at breeding time was usually 4 to 7 individuals.
> 5. Females (breeding bitches) retained pups for average 18 months.
> 6. Pack dispersal was very consistent after breeding season.
> 7. Litter size consistently 1-3 pups. Bitch bred at 2-year old stage.
> 8. Extremely selective as to food source. Rarely fed on old carcasses or
> kills of other species accept in the most harsh winter conditions.
> 9. Very much an opportunist when different prey was available. Spent great
> percentage of hunting effort on rodent acquistion, (voles to rabbits).
> 10. Sport Reflex Killing almost neglegible. Most ungulate depredation was
> consumptive not surplus. Typical kill had hams and shoulders consumed.
> ll. Territory of individual or pairs quite large. Average 2 week return
> cycle.
> 12. Wolf body size: Female 55lbs-70lbs, Male 85-105.
> 13. Competion with other predator species including coyote and fox was
> low. Other canine species coexisted and thrived in presence of Resident
> Wolves.
> 14. Habitat utilized consistently: Mid to high elevation, with forest and
> mixed forest. Resident Wolf very resistive to utilizing large areas of
> open rangeland with grass or sagebrush cover.
> l5. Older mature males almost always solitary except at breeding interval.
> 16. Conflict with domestic dogs very minimal except in rare cases.
> 17. Livestock depredations extremely rare but do occur in remote areas.
> l8. Consistent avoidance of manmade structures, roads, vehicles, humans.
>
> Note: This data as well as maps locating individual wolves as well as
> breeding pairs was hand delived to Craig Groves in l992 and entered
> into Idaho Fish and Game's Consevation Data Base by George Stevens.
> Craig Groves was at the time in charge of oversight of the Consevation
> Data Base and an Idaho Fish and Game employee.
and,
NON NATIVE WOLF
> Observed Criterion: Introduced Canadian Grey Wolf (Canis Lupus Occidentalis)
> 1996 to present.
>
> 1. Exibits low level of fear of humans. Non-secretive behavior. Minimal
> avoidance of humans, vehicles, domestic animals. Will cross large open
> terrain at will even when other options for cover are available.
> 2. Canadian Grey Wolf is found in small to very large pack sizes. Small
> packs of 5 individuals are common as are large packs with over 20
> members.
> 3. Pack merging, the condition of 2 or more packs combining is being
> observed in many areas in the west and is not uncommon. Merged packs
> of over 40 wolves have been observed in the Central Idaho Wilderness.
> 4. Females (breeding bitches) are can be bred even at 1 year of age and
> produce from 5 to 9 pups per season. The pups usually remain with the
> pack but can disperse or be driven off by other pack members. All
> females of breeding potential in the pack are usually bred. There is
> absolutely no indication that any females are kept from breeding by the
> theoretical "Alpha-female". Large packs are quickly produced and can
> disperse and merge several times within a week.
> 5. Canadian Grey Wolves show a diet preference for elk but will switch at
> will to secondary prey species. Low preference is shown for rodent
> species but wolves do sporadically hunt rodents.
> 6. Sport Reflex Killing is highly developed in Canadian Grey packs. From
> observations in the field, 3 to 5 ungulates are killed for each
> ungulate consumed. This surplus killing is greatly increased if the
> pack size is large or packs have merged. Often small wintering herds
> of deer or elk are completely extirpated in one hunting event.
> 7. Body Size: Females 60-85lbs, Males 90-120lbs.
> 8. Competion with other predatory species is extreme and often fatal. Both
> mountain lion and bear have been impacted by attacks and from reduced
> available prey. Other Canines such as Coyote and Fox have been severly
> impacted in most of their habitats. Fox are only able to survive in
> habitats that include lots of willow or dense underbrush. Coyote
> populations have been reduced but are persisting at lower than historic
> levels.
> 9. Canadian Grey Wolf has been found to utilize all available habitats,
> from high elevation alpine to sagebrush deserts. This has allowed the
> wolf to be opportunistic in all ecosystems available to it.
> 10. Large mature male wolves remain with the pack thru out the year,
> sometimes dispersing for short periods of time.
> 11. The Canadian Grey wolf is highly predatorial on all domestic canines.
> Hunting hounds are especially vulnerable to attacks and are usually
> killed outright in a confrontation by wolves.
> 12. Canadian Grey Wolves have shown a prefence for depredating on domestic
> livestock even with abundant natural prey present. Beef calves are the
> most common victims of wolf depredation.
> 13. Canadian Grey Wolves show a high level of habituation to humans, and
> man-made structures. It is not uncommon to find Canadian Grey Wolves
> in very remote areas eating out of dog dishes and coming onto porches
> of homes when the owners are present.
>
>
> It is clear from a comparison of the two varieties of wolves that control
> efforts will have to take into account the realities of dealing with a wolf as
> different as the Canadian Grey Wolf is from wolves found in other parts of the
> continent. Both the high fecundity of the Canadian Grey Wolf and its
> depredating qualities ensures that control efforts will have to be highly
> organized and long term if we are to protect our manificant wildlife from the
> debacle that is ongoing in Canada and in our western states.
> I will not in this email go into the fraud and corruption
> that brought us to this wildlife disaster, but suffice it to say that had the
> Federal Agencies not been corrupt in dealing with the information given them by
> Idaho and Montana and Wyoming citizens we would by now have had a recovered
> Resident wolf population that would still need to be managed but we would not
> have what we have now with the very existence of our ungulates hanging in the
> balance and wolf borne diseases threatening our way of life. If possible and
> time permits I will fill you in later on how our investigation turned out and
> who was responsible for purging our maps and data and carring out the
> introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf in direct violation of the Endangered
> Species Act. It is a very tragic story, but God willing we will turn this
> around!!.
> Yours,
> Tim Kemery
"I will not in this email go into the fraud and corruption" ...
He (Tim) , admits he has knowledge of such, what other proof do you need? Have you seen the Vid of Mr. Beers speaking about the theft of P/R Tax funds to facilitate this Bunk science? If not here is that link...
The Wolving of America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqxS2jTRVqk#)
Wolf introduction is A Criminal Enterprise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiDLjisn3HE#ws)
http://www.youtube.com/user/Rockholm66 (http://www.youtube.com/user/Rockholm66)
As for the reporter guy bashing Mr. wolfbait, This guy is a reporter, and it's his job to dig up facts to obtain his storyline. If he thinks he can call BS on some of his facts, then so be it. He is not the bigger person for saying so. It is all the same as saying BS to his facts he presents. BS is as BS does in my book. No lolly-gaging want to be Biologist anywhere that does not consider wolves a threat to the future of their job and income potential is just plain and simple not in the best interest of our sportsman cooperative F&G departments. Sportsmen are the key to successful F&G agencies. (Bottom line)
Go with what you will, I too have said my :twocents:,
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2011, 10:29:09 AM
Post by: mathews_shooter4life on January 25, 2011, 11:14:47 AM
To which part of the post are you referring to? CLO vs CLI? ?
Canis lupus Occidentalis is the introduced sub species, and Canis lupus Irremotus (native grey wolf) are two very different sub species of grey wolf .
hope this answers your question. It is from ...
http://www.cosmosmith.com/wolfpage.html (http://www.cosmosmith.com/wolfpage.html)
This shows two distinctly different wolf subspecies and proves the CLO Introduction was based upon junk science and fraud. Telling people the wolves are one in the same is slanderous and shows just how criminally intent the introduction of CLO has been and continues to be a tool to remove the sportsman from the roll of game management. No game = No Hunting.
Post by: BIGINNER on January 25, 2011, 11:26:26 AM
THESE ARE ALL THE SUB SPECIES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus)
THESE ARE THE ONES RELEASED IN YELLOWSTON AND IDAHO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf)
THESE ARE THE NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOLVES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_irremotus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_irremotus)
AND THESE ARE THE CASCADE RANGE WOLVES (EXTINCT APARENTLY)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_fuscus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_fuscus)
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2011, 07:09:57 PM