Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Wolves => Topic started by: ribka on September 24, 2017, 08:27:10 AM


Advertise Here
Title: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 24, 2017, 08:27:10 AM
I noticed a new member appeared on here pushing wolf agenda

On another outdoor forum he advised that co authored this article with Mitch Friedman director of conservation NW

http://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-rural-communities-can-coexist-with-wolves-heres-how/

If you do some research you discover that Mitch Friedman was a long time 20 plus years member of Earthfirst

Mr Friedman grew up in Chicago , like another radical community activist we know, and is suddenly an expert in big predators and wildlife management.

Earthfirst is classified as an eco terrorist organization that committed large scale arson , vandalism , threats against employees and their families who worked at companies they disagreed with

They were infamous in spiking trees that injured loggers



So mr friedman reinvented himself and now is pushing wolves into rural communities in an attempt to radically change their lifestyles and conservation has come out in hearings against sport hunting

Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 24, 2017, 08:39:10 AM
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 24, 2017, 01:35:29 PM
Not a shocker!

Funny how easy it is to spot these fakes even tho they are anynomious...

Guess we have a well tuned B S dectector!
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: PlateauNDN on September 24, 2017, 02:34:01 PM
Who is the recent member by chance?
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: trophyhunt on September 24, 2017, 02:58:54 PM
Who is the recent member by chance?
:yeah:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 24, 2017, 03:20:20 PM
Who is the recent member by chance?
:yeah:

This article is pretty decent.  He's right that collaboration is the best way to get anything accomplished.  If hunters (huge minority) think we can sit on the sidelines on issues like this, we will lose every.single.time.  So, prepare to collaborate folks.

As a side note- I think Mitch is a pretty good dude.  We do not agree on everything, but he lets you know his opinion and is respectful in dialogue.  He's also a fisherman and hunter, which might surprise some folks on here.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 24, 2017, 04:40:08 PM
I won't defend his affiliation with Earth First.  People can and do change and it sounds like he learned his approach was not working.

Collaboration is essential.  I would encourage everyone on this forum to listen to some of Shane Mahoney's podcasts about conservation issues, particularly the recent British Columbia ban on grizzly bear trophy hunting.  He raises some questions and perspectives we should all consider.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 24, 2017, 06:40:08 PM
Ah yes collaboration has work so well stacking the WAG with  anti hunting groups...

Must be why ranchers are now lining up to join the wolf  depredation program .
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 24, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
You don't have to collaborate if you hold all the power.  Unfortunately the ever decreasing populace of hunters don't have that option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 24, 2017, 07:30:59 PM
You imply that those your collaborating with have both honest intentions and only slight disagreements with hunting as a sport... they understand incrementalism and are organised... we don't accept incrementalism and fight amongst ourselves.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 24, 2017, 09:18:03 PM
I'm not implying anything.

Take whichever approach you choose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2017, 09:40:08 PM
Negotiating with environmentalists has only ended in more wolves than originally promised. The wolfers have themselves repeatedly proven time after time that you cannot expect a good faith agreement, you cannot trust them, honesty and good faith is not in their vocabulary. When this state eventually reaches it's outrageous wolf goals I guarantee there will be lawsuits or initiatives to try and prevent wolf management.  :twocents:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2017, 09:51:37 PM
It's interesting and really very intelligent, CNW brags how they help rural folks coexist with wolves, while at the same time many of their members most likely belong to other groups that immediately sue to stop any wolf management even when wolf population goals are exceeded. Don't be duped!
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: villageidiot on September 24, 2017, 09:54:38 PM
You got that one right Dale.   Every single deal (collaboration) that was made with the wolf lovers was broken by them.  They are the biggest lying scoundrels  of all time
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 24, 2017, 09:57:11 PM
Negotiating with environmentalists has only ended in more wolves than originally promised. The wolfers have themselves repeatedly proven time after time that you cannot expect a good faith agreement, you cannot trust them, honesty and good faith is not in their vocabulary. When this state eventually reaches it's outrageous wolf goals I guarantee there will be lawsuits or initiatives to try and prevent wolf management.  :twocents:

History is on my side with these statements....
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 24, 2017, 10:01:57 PM
True statements BP
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: huntnphool on September 24, 2017, 10:08:41 PM
Negotiating with environmentalists has only ended in more wolves than originally promised. The wolfers have themselves repeatedly proven time after time that you cannot expect a good faith agreement, you cannot trust them, honesty and good faith is not in their vocabulary. When this state eventually reaches it's outrageous wolf goals I guarantee there will be lawsuits or initiatives to try and prevent wolf management.  :twocents:

 Yeah, yet there are still members on this forum that continue to hope we reach that 15 breeding pair figure. :chuckle:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 08:48:20 AM
It's interesting and really very intelligent, CNW brags how they help rural folks coexist with wolves, while at the same time many of their members most likely belong to other groups that immediately sue to stop any wolf management even when wolf population goals are exceeded. Don't be duped!

The same violent whakos shut down the logging industry
Look what what they have done the health of our forests the past two decades

These groups are involved in social engineering and our very good at it
They are very active attending public meetings, lobbying our politician going on facebook hunting forums
Printed media with lies. They typically say they support hunters ranchers and behind the scenes have other groups file lawsuits like they did in Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan


They want to fundamentally destroy rural culture and all of its traditions like hunting ranching with uncontrolled flooding of apex predators
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 08:51:13 AM
Please all the pro sportsman legislation supported by cnw

They have opposed hunting and sportsmen on a number of occasions in this state


Who is the recent member by chance?
:yeah:

This article is pretty decent.  He's right that collaboration is the best way to get anything accomplished.  If hunters (huge minority) think we can sit on the sidelines on issues like this, we will lose every.single.time.  So, prepare to collaborate folks.

As a side note- I think Mitch is a pretty good dude.  We do not agree on everything, but he lets you know his opinion and is respectful in dialogue.  He's also a fisherman and hunter, which might surprise some folks on here.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 08:57:58 AM
Please all the pro sportsman legislation supported by cnw

They have opposed hunting and sportsmen on a number of occasions in this state

I contacted a rep of cnw and asked if they would support trapping and poison to help control wolves if their numbers  grew too fast like in Idaho MOntana Michigan Wisconsin

They answered no

They also have opposed and help shut down hound hunting for cats in Washington

Does not sound like any interest in working with ranchers and sportsmen to me but please feel free to provide proof. CNW can lie and say they but behind the scenes they have always done the opposite but hey he's a nice guy that spent two decades spiking trees to shut down loggers
Sounds like a great trustworthy guy to me




Who is the recent member by chance?
:yeah:

This article is pretty decent.  He's right that collaboration is the best way to get anything accomplished.  If hunters (huge minority) think we can sit on the sidelines on issues like this, we will lose every.single.time.  So, prepare to collaborate folks.

As a side note- I think Mitch is a pretty good dude.  We do not agree on everything, but he lets you know his opinion and is respectful in dialogue.  He's also a fisherman and hunter, which might surprise some folks on here.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 25, 2017, 09:23:20 AM
Beware of the TROJAN HORSE!  ;)
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on September 25, 2017, 10:36:05 AM
I noticed a new member appeared on here pushing wolf agenda

On another outdoor forum he advised that co authored this article with Mitch Friedman director of conservation NW

http://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-rural-communities-can-coexist-with-wolves-heres-how/

If you do some research you discover that Mitch Friedman was a long time 20 plus years member of Earthfirst

Mr Friedman grew up in Chicago , like another radical community activist we know, and is suddenly an expert in big predators and wildlife management.

Earthfirst is classified as an eco terrorist organization that committed large scale arson , vandalism , threats against employees and their families who worked at companies they disagreed with

They were infamous in spiking trees that injured loggers



So mr friedman reinvented himself and now is pushing wolves into rural communities in an attempt to radically change their lifestyles and conservation has come out in hearings against sport hunting

Hey Ribka, I'm your "duplicate new member". Not sure what you mean by "pushing wolves" on here, as I didn't post that op-ed here, but I'll bite. I've been on this forum about four years. Been an active part of the fly fishing forum and community for much longer than that. Sure, I post here sporadically (gotta work, afterall), adding perspective on hunting, as well as conservation issues, when I feel it adds value. But I'm hardly new. I've hunted Washington all my life, from ducks on the Nisqually and Skok to deer in the Methow and Snake River Breaks, and family elk camp in the South Cascades. I've found this forum to be a valuable source of information over the years, with great advice I consider in my hunting for deer, elk, bear and other species. And as someone who's worked in Olympia and elsewhere on natural resource, wildlife, conservation and energy policy for a decade, I think I've got some useful thoughts to share as well.

Yes, I helped co-author that piece. I previously wrote two similar ones for the Seattle Times. If you feel my views, or those of my employer or our Director (who's past is complex), are problematic for hunters or in the camp of the hardline animal rights or environmental outfits, and not in the interest of using compromise and collaboration to build some consensus that is acceptable in the long-term for hunters, ranchers, farmers, and wildlife advocates, I'd say you have no sense of how complex this issue is, or just how uncompromising other groups on the left side of the spectrum actually are. There is a real threat in WA, OR and CA that a few national hardline groups might someday ban all wolf hunting and active management via citizen's initiative or endless lawsuits. Would you prefer that to CNW's approach?

I may not agree with everything you or others write about wolves, but I know the frustrations, I've heard them over dozens of hunt camp fires. And thanks to my work, I've spent enough time on the range with ranchers in Washington and Montana to feel for their concerns as well. My hope with pieces like that one is we can get to a point where Washington has wolves, (afterall they're native and belong here, just like elk. And they're not going away now.), but they are managed with science to ensure negative impacts to big game populations and rancher's livelihoods are minimal. If you or others want to question my motives, that's fine. But I'm not new here, and the above is all there is to it. I made my positions in regards to wolf hunting and responsible wolf management clear on the fly fishing forum as well. - Chase
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on September 25, 2017, 10:46:12 AM
Please all the pro sportsman legislation supported by cnw

They have opposed hunting and sportsmen on a number of occasions in this state


Ribka, I'll humor you with one example you may find interesting. CNW's support for the wolf cull in British Columbia to conserve struggling mountain caribou: www.conservationnw.org/news/updates/bc-announces-wolf-cull-to-protect-endangered-south-selkirks-mountain-caribou (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/updates/bc-announces-wolf-cull-to-protect-endangered-south-selkirks-mountain-caribou)

Hardline green groups lambasted us and we lost members over this, but we we stand strongly on the side of science that predator removal is at times an essential conservation tool. Wolves in southern BC caribou habitat are one of those times.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 11:39:47 AM
Chase I see your the media director for CNW and have a degree in journalism and it your job to spread their propaganda and your writings basically consist of the same platitudes and no facts. Your argument is sportsmen  have to support rabid anti hunting groups or CNW that wants to shut down just some of the hunting-for now

I don't know how a degree in journalism  makes you an expert in apex predators but maybe I just stupid. I had my first wolf experience in 1977 in NW WI sitting in a tree stand bow hunting when a large wolf walked underneath me. I reported the sighting to local DNR guy and he said I was nuts, I went back took a plaster cast of the track and showed it to a bio and was proven right. . I have encountered wolves in NE Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba Alberta Alaska BC in Wyoming, Minnesota, Idaho , Washington, Wyoming and I worked in Russia for years and encountered wolves there  and in Kazakhstan, Kyrgistan.   I went wolf and boar hunting twice in the Altai region of Russia. A good friend of mine, Nestor, was a wildlife Bio in Russia who specialized in the Siberian tiger and as far as I know was one of the most experienced bios in the world. He felt strongly that wolf populations had to be controlled through any means necessary  due to their fast reproductive rates

I see no one on CNW's staff that is an avid hunter. I see no legislation that CNW supports those who hunt. I do see that they supported legislation that bans forms of hunting. That is why I am skeptical. I would like to see Mr. Friedman post photos of some of the game he harvested on CNW's website to show that he supports sportsmen.
 
For those who think Mr. Friedman is a nice guy looking out for sportsmen:

from CNW director Friedman
"Mitch Friedman wrote in a letter to the Earth First! Journal. Friedman, a former Earth First!er, was among Washington's first tree-sitters during the 1980s' Timber Wars, and now heads Conservation Northwest",

more wisdom from Mr. Friedman:

 "In 1987, tree-spiking claimed its first known casualty: A California mill worker named George Anderson had his jaw shattered when a shard from a spiked tree, splintered by his band saw, ricocheted into his face. In response to the incident, Dave Foreman said: “It’s unfortunate this worker was injured and I wish him the best. But the real destruction and injury is being perpetrated by Louisiana-Pacific and the Forest Service in liquidating old-growth forests.” In 1988, EF member Mitch Friedman stated that “tree-spiking is not terrorism; it is a justifiably extreme and noble deed.”



please post some pro sportsmen legislation supported  by CNW
List members on your staff who actively hunt as you repeatedly stated that your group supports every side.

CNW has come out against using dogs to hunt bear and cats. They are opposed to trapping the only proven method know by wildlife bios in Idaho and Montana to maintain control of exploding wolf numbers


What is CNW's target population of wolves in Washington as you dodged the question and what methods are CNW willing to support management of wolves?


Has CNW fought the lawsuits by radical anti hunting groups? Why not if your goal is intelligent wildlife management that brings all groups to the table 

Again I see no hunting guides or sportsmen on CNW's staff. I do see a lot of community actvists



Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 11:52:03 AM
As the media guy for CNW how do you feel about BC shutting down sport hunting for grizzly bears up there? The population as you know as a journalist is very healthy and growing

Did you support any legislation that supports sportsmen up there?

Does CNW supporting the trapping of wolves to help the mountain caribou? How about the moose populations up in BC. I was up there 6 years ago moose hunting and saw 17 cow moose and none had calves. Moose often have twins.  As soon as I shot a moose two wolf packs came that night to the carcass. All of the hunters and guides up there complained about too many wolves


Please all the pro sportsman legislation supported by cnw

They have opposed hunting and sportsmen on a number of occasions in this state


Ribka, I'll humor you with one example you may find interesting. CNW's support for the wolf cull in British Columbia to conserve struggling mountain caribou: www.conservationnw.org/news/updates/bc-announces-wolf-cull-to-protect-endangered-south-selkirks-mountain-caribou (http://www.conservationnw.org/news/updates/bc-announces-wolf-cull-to-protect-endangered-south-selkirks-mountain-caribou)

Hardline green groups lambasted us and we lost members over this, but we we stand strongly on the side of science that predator removal is at times an essential conservation tool. Wolves in southern BC caribou habitat are one of those times.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on September 25, 2017, 11:52:50 AM
Chase I see your the media director for CNW and have a degree in journalism and it your job to spread their propaganda

I don't know how a degree in journalism  makes you an expert in apex predators but maybe I just stupid. I had my first wolf experience in 1977 in NW WI sitting in a tree stand bow hunting when a large wolf walked underneath me. I reported the sighting to local DNR guy and he said I was nuts, I went back took a plaster cast of the track and showed it to a bio and was proven right. . I have encountered wolves in NE Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba Alberta Alaska BC in Wyoming, Minnesota, Idaho , Washington, Wyoming and I worked in Russia for years and encountered wolves there  and in Kazakhstan, Kyrgistan.   I went wolf and boar hunting twice in the Altai region of Russia. A good friend of mine, Nestor, was a wildlife Bio in Russia who specialized in the Siberian tiger and as far as I know was one of the most experienced bios in the world. He felt strongly that wolf populations had to be controlled through any means necessary  due to their fast reproductive rates

I see no one on CNW's staff that is an avid hunter. I see no legislation that CNW supports those who hunt. I do see that they supported legislation that bans forms of hunting. That is why I am skeptical. I would like to see Mr. Friedman post photos of some of the game he harvested on CNW's website to show that he supports sportsmen.
 
For those who think Mr. Friedman is a nice guy looking out for sportsmen:

from CNW director Friedman
"Mitch Friedman wrote in a letter to the Earth First! Journal. Friedman, a former Earth First!er, was among Washington's first tree-sitters during the 1980s' Timber Wars, and now heads Conservation Northwest",

more wisdom from Mr. Friedman:

 "In 1987, tree-spiking claimed its first known casualty: A California mill worker named George Anderson had his jaw shattered when a shard from a spiked tree, splintered by his band saw, ricocheted into his face. In response to the incident, Dave Foreman said: “It’s unfortunate this worker was injured and I wish him the best. But the real destruction and injury is being perpetrated by Louisiana-Pacific and the Forest Service in liquidating old-growth forests.” In 1988, EF member Mitch Friedman stated that “tree-spiking is not terrorism; it is a justifiably extreme and noble deed.”



please post some pro sportsmen legislation supported  by CNW
List members on your staff who actively hunt as you repeatedly stated that your group supports every side.

I spent the last week home processing my High Buck muley. Does that count? Not defending Mitch's past deeds, nor am I likely to get through to you if you feel I'm just a propaganda tool, but yes a number (at least 4) of our staffers, including Mitch, hunt each season.  Personally, I'm already looking forward to elk season, and am a little bummed that the downside of finally getting a deer in the September High Hunt means not hitting the Okanogan for my annual general season camp.

If you or others want to attack me or CNW on here, that's your prerogative. There's things the org has done in the past that I certainly don't agree with either. But know that the policy-making landscape when it comes to wolves, other wildlife, and hunting is a hell of a lot wider cross section of society than this forum. Collaboration, and compromise, will always be necessary from all stakeholders. Especially in states like ours where the hardline groups have significant advantages.

Hunters and anglers make up approximately 5 percent of the population. If we refuse to participate in that wider process, we lose. Making policy that benefits hunters, and game, in the real world is a lot more complex than finding agreement on this forum. Say what you will on here, but if we ever cross paths at the trailhead, I'd be happy to chat with any of you about it further.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 12:02:28 PM
I understand the issues very well and would have a beer with you. I still feel that CNW has no interest in sportsmen when it comes to the table negotiate and your responses to my questions just reaffirmed my beliefs

 I  see zero proof from you or past activities of CNW. If fact they have always supported legislation against hunting.

I asked you for proof and you just change the subject as anyone would pushes propaganda and bring up more meaningless platitudes again

I see your IT guy  at CNW is a proud member of this anti hunting organization

http://www.howlingforwolves.org/

I look forward to your and Mr Friedman posting pics of your supposed hunting this October on CNW to show your support for sportsmen. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2017, 12:08:04 PM
Stake holders pay the bills... as the general budget commitment shrinks from the state so should the general public's input...
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 12:34:41 PM
I see on Facebook  that CNW is having a pizza party this month at the sierra club a known anti hunting organization. I see zero support for sportsmen on their facebook page in fact the majority of the comments attack sportsmen. Oh well I guess they are looking out for best interest I guess according to the new poster :chuckle:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ConservationNW/posts/?ref=page_internal

Sierra Club—Sierra Club and many of its chapters oppose access by roads to vast tracts of public lands and the group also opposes many scientific wildlife management practices. The Sierra Club’s Legal Defense Fund has frequently sued the federal government over those issues, then sought reimbursement for its legal expenses. Many of its chapters have actively opposed hunting.  For example, a New Jersey Sierra Club chapter has been a leader in opposing that state’s bear hunts. The Sierra Club Grand Canyon chapter worked to end all hunting in Arizona when Proposition 109 was being considered. The Sierra Club in California opposed bear hunting with hounds. Yes, actions speak louder than words – the Sierra Club and many of its chapters are anti-hunting
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on September 25, 2017, 12:47:04 PM
I see on Facebook  that CNW is having a pizza party this month at the sierra club a known anti hunting organization. I see zero support for sportsmen on their facebook page in fact the majority of the comments attack sportsmen. Oh well I guess they are looking out for best interest I guess according to the new poster :chuckle:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ConservationNW/posts/?ref=page_internal

Sierra Club—Sierra Club and many of its chapters oppose access by roads to vast tracts of public lands and the group also opposes many scientific wildlife management practices. The Sierra Club’s Legal Defense Fund has frequently sued the federal government over those issues, then sought reimbursement for its legal expenses. Many of its chapters have actively opposed hunting.  For example, a New Jersey Sierra Club chapter has been a leader in opposing that state’s bear hunts. The Sierra Club Grand Canyon chapter worked to end all hunting in Arizona when Proposition 109 was being considered. The Sierra Club in California opposed bear hunting with hounds. Yes, actions speak louder than words – the Sierra Club and many of its chapters are anti-hunting

I'm not aware of any such event. And it's certainly not on our Facebook page. Nor are we in anyway affiliated with the Club. While we may see eye to eye with them on some issues, they hate us on others, and take a very different track. Particularly when it comes to wolves. Keep painting with your broad brush. It may fit your worldview, but it doesn't help hunters or wildlife.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 12:53:13 PM
here ya go. Going to give a smug lecture again that I don't understand the complex issues? :chuckle:

https://www.facebook.com/events/799030296832867/?acontext=%7B%22source%22%3A5%2C%22page_id_source%22%3A7890108747%2C%22action_history%22%3A[%7B%22surface%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22main_list%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%7B%5C%22page_id%5C%22%3A7890108747%2C%5C%22tour_id%5C%22%3Anull%7D%22%7D]%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D



Why does CNW have a staff member who is member of an anti hunting group that wants to ban all  hunting?

Where are the sportsmen on your staff?


Matt Johnson, IT Administrator
Matt Johnson
mjohnson (at) conservationnw.org
Matt has extensive professional experience and education in information technology systems and electronics. After realizing both the deplorable status that non-human animals hold in modern society and the constant degradation of the environment by humanity, he decided to apply his training to solving these problems by working for a world class non-profit, Conservation Northwest. Matt also has experience as a volunteer for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Howling For Wolves, is trained as a Minnesota Master Naturalist, and worked on a successful campaign to limit pesticide use in Minneapolis, among many other conservation-related activities

Chase I look forward to you and Mr Friedman posting your supposed hunting pics on the CNW facebook page as sport hunting brings millions of dollars each year  in to protect wildlife habitat. Much more than CNW. I highly doubt you both hunt. May be a pic of last year's hunt might convince me otherwise here

wont be holding my breath though






I see on Facebook  that CNW is having a pizza party this month at the sierra club a known anti hunting organization. I see zero support for sportsmen on their facebook page in fact the majority of the comments attack sportsmen. Oh well I guess they are looking out for best interest I guess according to the new poster :chuckle:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ConservationNW/posts/?ref=page_internal

Sierra Club—Sierra Club and many of its chapters oppose access by roads to vast tracts of public lands and the group also opposes many scientific wildlife management practices. The Sierra Club’s Legal Defense Fund has frequently sued the federal government over those issues, then sought reimbursement for its legal expenses. Many of its chapters have actively opposed hunting.  For example, a New Jersey Sierra Club chapter has been a leader in opposing that state’s bear hunts. The Sierra Club Grand Canyon chapter worked to end all hunting in Arizona when Proposition 109 was being considered. The Sierra Club in California opposed bear hunting with hounds. Yes, actions speak louder than words – the Sierra Club and many of its chapters are anti-hunting

I'm not aware of any such event. And it's certainly not on our Facebook page. Nor are we in anyway affiliated with the Club. While we may see eye to eye with them on some issues, they hate us on others, and take a very different track. Particularly when it comes to wolves. Keep painting with your broad brush. It may fit your worldview, but it doesn't help hunters or wildlife.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on September 25, 2017, 12:57:32 PM
here ya go. Going to give a smug lecture agin that I don't understand the complex issues? :chuckle:

https://www.facebook.com/events/799030296832867/?acontext=%7B%22source%22%3A5%2C%22page_id_source%22%3A7890108747%2C%22action_history%22%3A[%7B%22surface%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22main_list%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%7B%5C%22page_id%5C%22%3A7890108747%2C%5C%22tour_id%5C%22%3Anull%7D%22%7D]%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D


Why does CNW have a staff member who is member of an anti hunting group that wants to ban all  hunting?

Where are the sportsmen on your staff?





I see on Facebook  that CNW is having a pizza party this month at the sierra club a known anti hunting organization. I see zero support for sportsmen on their facebook page in fact the majority of the comments attack sportsmen. Oh well I guess they are looking out for best interest I guess according to the new poster :chuckle:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ConservationNW/posts/?ref=page_internal

Sierra Club—Sierra Club and many of its chapters oppose access by roads to vast tracts of public lands and the group also opposes many scientific wildlife management practices. The Sierra Club’s Legal Defense Fund has frequently sued the federal government over those issues, then sought reimbursement for its legal expenses. Many of its chapters have actively opposed hunting.  For example, a New Jersey Sierra Club chapter has been a leader in opposing that state’s bear hunts. The Sierra Club Grand Canyon chapter worked to end all hunting in Arizona when Proposition 109 was being considered. The Sierra Club in California opposed bear hunting with hounds. Yes, actions speak louder than words – the Sierra Club and many of its chapters are anti-hunting

I'm not aware of any such event. And it's certainly not on our Facebook page. Nor are we in anyway affiliated with the Club. While we may see eye to eye with them on some issues, they hate us on others, and take a very different track. Particularly when it comes to wolves. Keep painting with your broad brush. It may fit your worldview, but it doesn't help hunters or wildlife.

That event is from September 2011, and was related to USFS forest plan updates, not wolves.  As to my lack of awareness, that was two years before I started working for the org.

Yes, if you're citing a "pizza party" event from six years ago as proof of some anti-hunter conspiracy from a regional organization with a long track record of collaborating with hunters, ranchers and others to find acceptable common ground, I don't think you understand the complexity of the situation.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 01:00:58 PM
"Join Conservation Northwest, Sierra Club, and others for some tasty activism. Free pizza and beer and a chance to ensure Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests get the best forest plans possible. Your letters make a difference."



your quote- more duplicity again
"I'm not aware of any such event. And it's certainly not on our Facebook page. Nor are we in anyway affiliated with the Club"




tasty activism. Sounds like fun

Again name pro sportsmen legislation that CNW or the Sierra Club has supported the past 5 years
The sierra club has been documented these days to very anti hunting in legislation that it has supported

looking forward to your deer and elk pics from your supposed hunting exploits




I see on Facebook  that CNW is having a pizza party this month at the sierra club a known anti hunting organization. I see zero support for sportsmen on their facebook page in fact the majority of the comments attack sportsmen. Oh well I guess they are looking out for best interest I guess according to the new poster :chuckle:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ConservationNW/posts/?ref=page_internal

Sierra Club—Sierra Club and many of its chapters oppose access by roads to vast tracts of public lands and the group also opposes many scientific wildlife management practices. The Sierra Club’s Legal Defense Fund has frequently sued the federal government over those issues, then sought reimbursement for its legal expenses. Many of its chapters have actively opposed hunting.  For example, a New Jersey Sierra Club chapter has been a leader in opposing that state’s bear hunts. The Sierra Club Grand Canyon chapter worked to end all hunting in Arizona when Proposition 109 was being considered. The Sierra Club in California opposed bear hunting with hounds. Yes, actions speak louder than words – the Sierra Club and many of its chapters are anti-hunting

I'm not aware of any such event. And it's certainly not on our Facebook page. Nor are we in anyway affiliated with the Club. While we may see eye to eye with them on some issues, they hate us on others, and take a very different track. Particularly when it comes to wolves. Keep painting with your broad brush. It may fit your worldview, but it doesn't help hunters or wildlife.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2017, 01:02:04 PM
Unfortunately lots of "conservation" groups try to straddle the fence by stating that they are for habitat. RMEF comes to mind... and since their was a revolt, and  further opportunity to fundraise they modified their stance.

Just because an organization is a Non profit Conservation group doesn't mean they are without  $ motivation... They just like to drag things out longer that a for profit company does.
Title: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 25, 2017, 02:41:27 PM
Public trust of wildlife means just that, public trust. It does not discriminate whether you are a hunter, birdwatcher, non-Hunter, or anti-Hunter. In the world we live in all people have the same vested ownership of wildlife under the public trust doctrine.

You can sit and argue all day about the motives of nonprofit groups. In the end, it really does no good. Collaboration will be an essential aspect as we move forward in an environment where fewer people take part in nature.

Hunters do not have the political clout, nor sheer numbers to achieve what many of you would like to see. That's not to say your end goals are wrong, it just means they are highly unlikely to happen. There are two choices, collaborate and realize that you will give some to get some, or draw a hard line in the sand and watch things happen like citizens initiative that ban hound hunting, foothold trapping, and as we recently saw,  trophy hunting for grizzly bears.

I am willing to bet a good many hound hunters and trappers in Washington, Oregon, and California wish they had collaborated with groups ahead of time so that maybe those activities would still be legal. Maybe not in the same sense they were prior to the bans, but it's certainly better than the end result that we are faced with now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2017, 03:07:35 PM
There is no "Give some to get sum"....  there is collaborate to slow the attack... and give cover to those spineless enough not to tell the general public the truth.

Ask Californians how preventing the hunting of cougars have helped those in the suburbs that have had fluffy snatched while walking them, or people whom been attacked. The role of hunters and how it helps non hunters is the key problem. A lack of knowledge and understanding....   but hey they can feel good about outlawing traps and hound hunting.
Title: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 25, 2017, 03:12:24 PM
I would agree 100% that lack of knowledge and lack of understanding is a key component. And that is where joining in collaboration can help hunters in the long run. We have done an exceptionally poor job of educating the public and telling our story on our own, and this is where it's gotten us.

The circle the wagons, and sit exclusively at our own table all by ourselves telling ourselves how great we've done is not going to cut it in the future.

It's also a reality for the future that we should expect a number of future hunters will also be affiliated with groups like Conservation Northwest. I'm not saying that's bad or good, it's just a reality. Are we going to choose to accept them as hunters or try and exclude them because of their disparate views on certain topics?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 03:14:23 PM
Just to reiterate cnw has come publically against trapping and hunting with dogs

I fail how they have ever supported sportsmen

They did help diminish the mountain caribou herd with their antics though
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 25, 2017, 03:57:18 PM
I worked with Mitch and CNW to get legislation for hound hunting back in WA.  Mitch did a ton of legwork and had Reps. Blake and Kretz ready to sponsor something. 

CNW was a big reason we lost hound hunting, but they (Mitch at least) recognized that the best biological option was use of hounds and changed his position.  This was in 2011 or 12 maybe, that was the first time I worked with him.  I think you guys need to quit doing your research online and spend some time actually talking to people. 
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 04:22:38 PM
Wacoyte

Show me on cnw web site where they support any form of hunting

Chase the cnw spokesman, has already they support the ban of all forms of trapping too

They collaborate with anti hunting groups on their facebook page. They have zero collaboration with sportsmen in their agenda.

So cnw help shut down hunting and this can be easily found searching legislation and has at least one staff member who is a member of an anti hunting group who wants to ends all forms of hunting

Mitch was 20 years plus member of an eco terrorist group who advocated violent acts against loggers
But hey he is a nice guy whom we need to work with him to help shut down some of our hunting so we can be his friend

He helped end hunting so we really to listen to him

This is insane
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 04:25:19 PM
Show me on cnw web site where they support any form of hunting

Chase their spokesman has already they support the ban of all forms of trapping and dog hunting too

Tell either to come here and state CNW supports hunting, witch does more for wild wildlife habitat, than any other group and that they support hunting with dogs. Just come on here and publically state this. Pretty simple

They collaborate with anti hunting groups on their facebook page. They have zero collaboration with sportsmen in their agenda.

So cnw help shut down hunting and this can be easily found searching legislation and has at least one staff member who is a member of an anti hunting group who wants to ends all forms of hunting

Mitch was 20 years plus member who advocated violent acts against loggers
But hey he is a nice guy whom we need to work with him to help shut down some of our hunting so we can be his friend

Sheesh
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on September 25, 2017, 04:31:12 PM
CNW has a webpage devoted to the ways in which they support hunting. www.conservationnw.org/hunting (http://www.conservationnw.org/hunting)
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 04:48:39 PM
For the third time do you have hunters trappers hound hunters who are members of your cnw staff

Does cnw support trapping and hunting with dogs?

Third time what are the numbers of wolves and grizzly bears you want in WA?

You still have not provided any evidence that you hunt

Just so I'm clear you recently graduated from CWU with a degree in journalism ( really tough degree btw no science or math required) and now you travel around the west and lecture people how to live, push anti hunting legislation and that they need to give up their lifestyles

Where on your Fb page do you support hunting and trapping?9
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on September 25, 2017, 05:18:28 PM
Ribka, still with the personal attacks. Based on what you posted below, your reading comprehension of whatever Google search you did on me must be poor. I sure didn't go to Central, though the access to fly fishing and hunting around there would have been nice. Not a recent grad either, nor did I get a journalism degree... but I doubt most of the forum gives a damn about your research into me, so I'll leave it be.

If you're really dying for proof that I hunt, I'll give you that. I tagged a high buck muley in the North Cascades last week. I've hit that hunt hard for the last few years, and this year scouting and hunting smart paid off. Here's about 1/4 of him. The next two freezer racks are now also full, and we've had some delicious tenderloin steaks and venison stews around my house this week. Grinding up burgers tonight. The heart was the absolute best part of this deer so far. Fried with a light flour coating and dipped in ketchup and siricha mayo.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4493/37063833970_5a426801e5_z.jpg)

I hope that's enough for your inquisition. I also shared a bit more about this deer in this article: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/high-hunters-find-bucks-crowded-conditions-due-to-fires/. Go Cougs,


For the third time do you have hunters trappers hound hunters who are members of your cnw staff

Does cnw support trapping and hunting with dogs?

Third time what are the numbers of wolves and grizzly bears you want in WA?

You still have not provided any evidence that you hunt

Just so I'm clear you recently graduated from CWU with a degree in journalism ( really tough degree btw no science or math required) and now you travel around the west and lecture people how to live, push anti hunting legislation and that they need to give up their lifestyles

Where on your Fb page do you support hunting and trapping?9
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 05:45:36 PM
WSU communications major-rigorous

Does CNW support trapping , hound hunting, and has the organization
Shut down hunting seasons?

Forth time what cnw's agreed on numbers  for wolves in Washington?

simple question

You already lied about cnw's association the anti hunting group sierra club which has spent thousands shutting down hunting in many states

Congrats on the deer I look forward to you posting a pic of you and your deer on the cnw Facebook page!

The deer numbers are so low now I'm surprised as a supposed conservationist  that you choose to shoot a deer up there. Oh sorry am I being smug? The only decent numbers are whitetail now in the

My friends stopped the high hunt because the deer numbers are too low there now






Ribka, still with the personal attacks. Based on what you posted below, your reading comprehension of whatever Google search you did on me must be poor. I sure didn't go to Central, though the access to fly fishing and hunting around there would have been nice. Not a recent grad either, nor did I get a journalism degree... but I doubt most of the forum gives a damn about your research into me, so I'll leave it be.

If you're really dying for proof that I hunt, I'll give you that. I tagged a high buck muley in the North Cascades last week. I've hit that hunt hard for the last few years, and this year scouting and hunting smart paid off. Here's about 1/4 of him. The next two freezer racks are now also full, and we've had some delicious tenderloin steaks and venison stews around my house this week. Grinding up burgers tonight. The heart was the absolute best part of this deer so far. Fried with a light flour coating and dipped in ketchup and siricha mayo.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4493/37063833970_5a426801e5_z.jpg)

I hope that's enough for your inquisition. I also shared a bit more about this deer in this article: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/high-hunters-find-bucks-crowded-conditions-due-to-fires/. Go Cougs,


For the third time do you have hunters trappers hound hunters who are members of your cnw staff

Does cnw support trapping and hunting with dogs?

Third time what are the numbers of wolves and grizzly bears you want in WA?

You still have not provided any evidence that you hunt

Just so I'm clear you recently graduated from CWU with a degree in journalism ( really tough degree btw no science or math required) and now you travel around the west and lecture people how to live, push anti hunting legislation and that they need to give up their lifestyles

Where on your Fb page do you support hunting and trapping?9
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 25, 2017, 06:06:13 PM
Wacoyte

Show me on cnw web site where they support any form of hunting

Chase the cnw spokesman, has already they support the ban of all forms of trapping too

They collaborate with anti hunting groups on their facebook page. They have zero collaboration with sportsmen in their agenda.

So cnw help shut down hunting and this can be easily found searching legislation and has at least one staff member who is a member of an anti hunting group who wants to ends all forms of hunting

Mitch was 20 years plus member of an eco terrorist group who advocated violent acts against loggers
But hey he is a nice guy whom we need to work with him to help shut down some of our hunting so we can be his friend

He helped end hunting so we really to listen to him

This is insane
I haven't been on third website.  Like I said, go meet someone in person and quit worrying with the internet research
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Lucky1 on September 25, 2017, 06:20:43 PM
CNW has a webpage devoted to the ways in which they support hunting. www.conservationnw.org/hunting (http://www.conservationnw.org/hunting)
I see that CNW seems to accept "fair chase hunting". Do you know if their definition of fair chase includes baiting? Hound hunting? All legal hunting methods?
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 06:42:34 PM
CNW has a webpage devoted to the ways in which they support hunting. www.conservationnw.org/hunting (http://www.conservationnw.org/hunting)
I see that CNW seems to accept "fair chase hunting". Do you know if their definition of fair chase includes baiting? Hound hunting? All legal hunting methods?

Nope against hound hunting , baiting, trapping

Lobbying to hound hunting of cats shut down

Feel free to come on and set the record straight chase

Seem like nice  :dunno:guys though
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: mfswallace on September 25, 2017, 08:34:11 PM
I worked with Mitch and CNW to get legislation for hound hunting back in WA.  Mitch did a ton of legwork and had Reps. Blake and Kretz ready to sponsor something. 

CNW was a big reason we lost hound hunting, but they (Mitch at least) recognized that the best biological option was use of hounds and changed his position.  This was in 2011 or 12 maybe, that was the first time I worked with him.  I think you guys need to quit doing your research online and spend some time actually talking to people.

I think you just pointed out the duplicity this thread is about, you got duped  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 25, 2017, 09:05:08 PM
Here is some of the history of Mitch Friedman... do a quick Google search and you will find the kind of lawsuits he considers sucess.

Http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970714&slug=2549520

While advocates like Beth Church, conservation manager for Wolfhaven, a research and wolf advocacy south of Olympia, applaud Dicks' effort in the Olympics, they are still rankled by the budget cuts in the North Cascades.

Argues Mitch Friedman, director of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, "Wolves in the Olympics make perfect political sense because you've got a congressman who wants them in his district. But biologically speaking, why are we starting another batch of cookies while we let the ones we've already got in the oven burn?"

While funding for the Olympic wolf-restoration program has been rolling through the House, the Fish and Wildlife Service last week announced it had completed a grizzly-bear recovery plan for the North Cascades - a study first begun in 1991.




http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=649

I founded the Greater Ecosystem Alliance (later renamed Northwest Ecosystem Alliance) that year, along with some friends who now have mostly moved on to other projects. On our minds was to champion bold new approaches to saving biodiversity. With big goals envisioned, we wanted to protect not just the big trees, trails and owls, but the entire old growth ecosystem. We wanted to protect not just the alpine gems, but the entire North Cascades ecosystem, capable of sustaining a viable grizzly bear population. We wanted to infuse new ideas of science and conservation to keep the Northwest wild, with large interconnected wild ecosystems from the Washington Coast to the British Columbia Rockies.

Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 25, 2017, 09:41:30 PM
He's motivated by his personal politics not his desire to support sportsmen

Still waiting for CNW spokesman or director of or to come back on here answer some basic questions regarding their stance for sport hunting

Coyotehunter do you know if CNW supports ALl legal forms of sport hunting?

I worked with Mitch and CNW to get legislation for hound hunting back in WA.  Mitch did a ton of legwork and had Reps. Blake and Kretz ready to sponsor something. 

CNW was a big reason we lost hound hunting, but they (Mitch at least) recognized that the best biological option was use of hounds and changed his position.  This was in 2011 or 12 maybe, that was the first time I worked with him.  I think you guys need to quit doing your research online and spend some time actually talking to people.

I think you just pointed out the duplicity this thread is about, you got duped  :chuckle:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: huntnphool on September 25, 2017, 11:37:09 PM
Quote
Argues Mitch Friedman, director of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, "Wolves in the Olympics make perfect political sense because you've got a congressman who wants them in his district. But biologically speaking, why are we starting another batch of cookies while we let the ones we've already got in the oven burn?"

While funding for the Olympic wolf-restoration program has been rolling through the House

 Wait a second, what happened to the "natural migration"?
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 26, 2017, 06:31:29 AM
The more you dig into CNW and their roots, it becomes apparent that they are a go between.  They shill for anti hunting groups while making the appearance of representing us... That is how they get on advisory groups   :pee: into the ear of politicians saying the are a sportsmen friendly org.

As much as I dislike these guys they get traction because we as sportsmen have not unified with a strong voice.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 26, 2017, 06:42:33 AM
Here is some of the history of Mitch Friedman... do a quick Google search and you will find the kind of lawsuits he considers sucess.

Http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970714&slug=2549520

While advocates like Beth Church, conservation manager for Wolfhaven, a research and wolf advocacy south of Olympia, applaud Dicks' effort in the Olympics, they are still rankled by the budget cuts in the North Cascades.

Argues Mitch Friedman, director of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, "Wolves in the Olympics make perfect political sense because you've got a congressman who wants them in his district. But biologically speaking, why are we starting another batch of cookies while we let the ones we've already got in the oven burn?"

While funding for the Olympic wolf-restoration program has been rolling through the House, the Fish and Wildlife Service last week announced it had completed a grizzly-bear recovery plan for the North Cascades - a study first begun in 1991.




http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=649

I founded the Greater Ecosystem Alliance (later renamed Northwest Ecosystem Alliance) that year, along with some friends who now have mostly moved on to other projects. On our minds was to champion bold new approaches to saving biodiversity. With big goals envisioned, we wanted to protect not just the big trees, trails and owls, but the entire old growth ecosystem. We wanted to protect not just the alpine gems, but the entire North Cascades ecosystem, capable of sustaining a viable grizzly bear population. We wanted to infuse new ideas of science and conservation to keep the Northwest wild, with large interconnected wild ecosystems from the Washington Coast to the British Columbia Rockies.

I think the first quote is pretty good... He doesn't seem to be encouraging wolves in the OP.  Do you read it some other way??

As for the second part- I agree.  We need to protect old growth forest.  CNW has collaborated for thinning and logging projects to restore forests in NE Washington and have supported a plan to increase yield here by ~200%


Coyotehunter do you know if CNW supports ALl legal forms of sport hunting?

I don't know, but I doubt they do.  I don't think they should have to support ALL types of hunting to be an ally or collaborator.  I don't support hunting with the use of drones, or extreme long range hunting... but I'm hardly an anti hunter.

They're not a hunting group.  That is clear, and that should be ok.  They are the most reasonable non-hunting centric conservation group in the NW and to sit in the corner with our arms crossed and not engage is foolish and is going to lead to less hunting opportunities.  You guys can take a hard line and scream at your computer screens all day, it's not going to make a difference, but if our user group is not represented by reasonable, thoughtful hunters we are going to miss out on opportunities to collaborate and protect our sport.

Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 26, 2017, 06:52:12 AM
So as hunters are only chance is to link up with a thoughtful man who spent 20 years as an ecoterrorist and has lobbied politicians in our state to shut down hunting seasons and whose group collaborated with other anti hunting groups to shut down hunting?

Ok now that makes perfect sense

Thanks
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 07:35:23 AM
So as hunters are only chance is to link up with a thoughtful man who spent 20 years as an ecoterrorist and has lobbied politicians in our state to shut down hunting seasons and whose group collaborated with other anti hunting groups to shut down hunting?

Ok now that makes perfect sense

Thanks

If you think have a chance in Hades of EVER having a wolf season without collaborating with groups like CNW, you are sorely mistaken.  So, I guess it depends on what you are hoping to achieve.

If your goal is only to discredit a group in such a way they are never considered a future collaborative partner, then carry on. 
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 26, 2017, 07:50:51 AM
I thought our only hope was the required number of Breeding pairs... Not many of us believe they are any kind of allie to actually start hunting wolves... instead they will do everything delay that day.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 08:07:50 AM
I thought our only hope was the required number of Breeding pairs... Not many of us believe they are any kind of allie to actually start hunting wolves... instead they will do everything delay that day.

If you think it was strictly about numbers and scientific data, then you haven't been paying attention to what just happened north of us in the province of British Columbia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 26, 2017, 08:13:04 AM


What is cnw's target numbers for wolves? They refuse to answer this question. Why?members of CNW are active in anti hunting organizations that are filing lawsuits to outlaw all hunting including wolves.

Based upon their staff and past lobbying they would never allow any hunting of wolves in WA  and will continue to lobby to shut down hunting of other animals as they already have done and continue to do so.



Why would the hunting community collaborate with an anti hunting organization?

Regarding BC-

The only proven way to control wolves is by trapping and poison as  very experienced wildlife managers in Idaho and Montana realized again
CNW has come out against all trapping and poisoning to control predators
Fact!

Please feel free to educate us

You can buy their lies but CNW is certainly no ally of the sporting community



Title: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 08:26:08 AM
When I referenced BC, I am referencing the recent trophy ban on grizzly bear hunting. I never once said CNW is an ally in a broader sense. They may be, or they may not depending on your viewpoint. I will just reiterate that they will be a very important ally in developing a wolf hunting season if/when the time comes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 26, 2017, 08:56:10 AM
When I referenced BC, I am referencing the recent trophy ban on grizzly bear hunting. I never once said CNW is an ally in a broader sense. They may be, or they may not depending on your viewpoint. I will just reiterate that they will be a very important ally and developing a wolf hunt/season if/when the time comes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I grew up hunting in Wisconsin over 30 years

I stopped going 10 years ago I would hunt a week and not see a deer
Growing up not uncommon to see 20 to 30 deer a day hunting and over a 100 deer on bid alfalfa fields at night. Now you're lucky to see 2 deer on the field

Wisconsin has around 240 wolf packs. That's right 240 wolf packs in state that has much less forested areas than Washington. The packs are growing about 25 per cent a year

The spokesman for CNW stated those are good numbers and did not support hunting wolves
 
In fact Groups like CNW worked with anti hunting group howling wolves to get wolf hunting shut down 2 years ago in Wisconsin . And did the same Minnesota and Michigan by filing lawsuits in federal court!

Imagine how many packs of wolves will be introduced by CNW in states like Washington and Oregon? 500 packs or more. That would decimate the stressed mule deer and moose and destroy our concentrated elk herds

Think we would have any hunting seasons in ten years?

I like to stick to the facts and not possible outcomes but if you think colaborating with an ecoterrorist is sound planning will never change your mind :dunno:
Title: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 09:03:07 AM
If you're going to stick to the facts, then stick to the facts. The Washington wolf plan calls for 15 breeding pairs. It says nothing about 500 packs, so I have no idea where you're deriving that number from.

I don't have a crystal ball, and I'm not going to try to predict what number of wolves CNW will view as a valid number to have before they would support hunting.  All I am saying is that CNW will certainly be involved in the potential development of a wolf hunt, therefore, they will be someone that can be either be an ally or an opponent. 

Mitch's past history is certainly something to keep aware of. However, you can be aware of it and move forward in the future without remaining rooted in the past.   I guarantee you other groups will sit down with CNW to have talks about potential wolf hunts in Washington. I would much prefer to be at the table and have my voice heard rather than sit on the sidelines because I don't like or agree with their stance on certain things. Your mileage may vary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2017, 09:38:52 AM
The more you dig into CNW and their roots, it becomes apparent that they are a go between.  They shill for anti hunting groups while making the appearance of representing us... That is how they get on advisory groups   :pee: into the ear of politicians saying the are a sportsmen friendly org.

As much as I dislike these guys they get traction because we as sportsmen have not unified with a strong voice.


Partners would be the correct term, WDF&wolves have several more on the WAG. Look into WDF&Wolves thirty year plan.

Fake environmentalists is another term that describes CNW, fake environemtetal groups push the agendas for the USFWS, WDFW etc., sort of like a silent partner on the inside, while making $$$$$$$$. Remember the wolf delisting tactics in ID, MT,? The USFWS made sure they always left a loophole open so the their fake environmental partners could sue.

I went to one of the wolf meetings, the 800,000.00 waste of money meeting, the lady explained that the "environmentalists'' wanted to set down and have tea, get to know the people who had problems with wolves a bit better so they could work out a solution to the conflicts. She was told by several it wasn't the "fake environmentalists" that had cause the wolf problems in WA, but instead the fake WDFW, who had lied at every turn.

At this point in the game anyone who claims the wolf introduction has anything to do with science is also pushing the wolf agenda. The wolf introduction is about getting cattle off public lands and ending hunting.





Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2017, 09:41:33 AM
Quote
Argues Mitch Friedman, director of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, "Wolves in the Olympics make perfect political sense because you've got a congressman who wants them in his district. But biologically speaking, why are we starting another batch of cookies while we let the ones we've already got in the oven burn?"

While funding for the Olympic wolf-restoration program has been rolling through the House

 Wait a second, what happened to the "natural migration"?


A little more history....

The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves

http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: huntnphool on September 26, 2017, 09:51:30 AM
So as hunters are only chance is to link up with a thoughtful man who spent 20 years as an ecoterrorist and has lobbied politicians in our state to shut down hunting seasons and whose group collaborated with other anti hunting groups to shut down hunting?

Ok now that makes perfect sense

Thanks

If you think have a chance in Hades of EVER having a wolf season without collaborating with groups like CNW, you are sorely mistaken.  So, I guess it depends on what you are hoping to achieve.

If your goal is only to discredit a group in such a way they are never considered a future collaborative partner, then carry on.

 We all should hope there are never enough wolves to have a season. :twocents:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 26, 2017, 09:59:26 AM
Must not be many poker players in this discussion.. Those making the case for CNW and their Ilk are either Shills or have been slow played.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_play

This definition fits quite nicely what is going on.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Bushcraft on September 26, 2017, 10:00:39 AM
Here's a few questions: How much money has WDFW given or funneled through CNW over the years?  From which division(s)?  And for what express purpose?
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 10:08:04 AM
Must not be many poker players in this discussion.. Those making the case for CNW and their Ilk are either Shills or have been slow played.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_play

This definition fits quite nicely what is going on.


Neither a shill or being slow played.  Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 26, 2017, 10:21:17 AM
I'd never thought I would see hunters embrace anti hunting groups and enable them to end hunting and ranching
And work closely with a self admitted and proud eco terrorist

I'm leaving WA in. Few months so have no skin the game in the future

I'm posting this let you know who is actively working to shut down hunting and ranching in this state
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 26, 2017, 10:25:17 AM
I'll partner with ranchers and local people before I ever partner with anti-hunting/trapping groups. Now that CNW has cleverly forced wolves upon us certainly they want to be our friend so we'll put up with the wolves and report wolf poachers.

It's pretty easy to say Mitch Friedman supports hound hunting after he helped eliminate it. In fact it's pretty easy to say anything once there is no chance of it happening.  :twocents:

I'll agree with ribka, when CNW starts supporting hunting and posting hunting photos and stories on their website then I'll believe they support hunting. I can offer a few awesome cougar hunting stories, let's see if they print that? For now I firmly beleive CNW views hunting exactly the way they view logging. The only reason they are bending a little is because they know they are viewed as extremists and were beginning to lose clout. They are very clever, I will give them that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is most likely sadly mistaken.

We are better off to side with ranchers, farmers, loggers, and rural legislators than to associate with CNW and oyther extrmist groups. If hunters collaborate with extremist they are going to use that to say they work with hunters to try and gain more influence.

They at best are clever operators, they really have no desire to expand hunting/trapping or the rural life the way we know it. They have their own world view and given the opportunity will turn on the rest of us and eliminate other forms of recreation and rural occupations when the opportunity presents itself.

We should oppose CNW or they will take advantage saying they work with sports folks and use that to eliminate more hunting/trapping/rural lifestyles. :twocents:


Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 26, 2017, 10:38:56 AM
It's so easy to see how CNW is cleverly posting little tidbits here and there about how they are helping rural communities and ranchers saying how this helps people and wolves. No doubt they are laughing behind the scenes and patting themselves on the back cheering how they have so cleverly manipulated wolf introduction.

I can tell you this, rural communities lost millions of dollars from hunters who quit coming and by livestock being eaten when wolves over populated in Idaho and Montana, now it's happening in WA. Mark my words, you will see fewer moose permits in WA just about every year until wolf numbers are greatly decreased, which will probably never happen. At least 50% to 60% of the moose are already gone, there are wolf tracks in the trails where there used to be moose tracks.

I used to tell my moose hunters we will see 5 to 10 moose per day, now I don't even want to guide moose hunters in some units because I know it might be tough to find 1 moose on a 5 day hunt!
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 26, 2017, 10:43:12 AM
Hunters need to oppose CNW every chance possible. We should always speak out loudly detailing how CNW does not have the best interests of hunters and trappers at heart. Explain to people that CNW helped eliminate hound hunting and trapping and will eliminate other forms of hunting if given the chance! DO NOT PARTNER with them, that only makes them stronger in the eyes of agencies like the WDFW and USFS.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Bushcraft on September 26, 2017, 10:44:14 AM

Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Even though our population represents a numerical minority in the grand scheme of things, there are far more sportsmen and women in this state than there are left-wing enviro-whackos.  We've got plenty of "number$" in the war chest. And, more importantly, we've got incredibly influential political allies that span the political spectrum that are willing to go to bat for us...even though they might not feel inclined to come right out and say it in mixed company.  ;)   
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 26, 2017, 10:49:00 AM
Remember this, the people of Idaho did not prevail on hunting wolves by partnering with CNW or any other wolf groups!


Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Even though our population represents a numerical minority in the grand scheme of things, there are far more sportsmen and women in this state than there are left-wing enviro-whackos.  We've got plenty of "number$" in the war chest. And, more importantly, we've got incredibly influential political allies that span the political spectrum that are willing to go bat for us...even though they might not feel inclined to come right out and say it in mixed company.  ;)   


 :yeah: STAND STRONG, we can't win by giving in to CNW or any other wolf groups!
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 10:52:28 AM

Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Even though our population represents a numerical minority in the grand scheme of things, there are far more sportsmen and women in this state than there are left-wing enviro-whackos.  We've got plenty of "number$" in the war chest. And, more importantly, we've got incredibly influential political allies that span the political spectrum that are willing to go bat for us...even though they might not feel inclined to come right out and say it in mixed company.  ;)   

You do live in WA, right? A wolf plan so outrageous in its scope as to prevent eventual management. Other predator management which is not designed around science. A governor who stacks the wildlife Commission with animal rights groups and also panders to those groups for campaign donations. And a population of hunters less than 4% of our state's population.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 10:53:32 AM

Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Even though our population represents a numerical minority in the grand scheme of things, there are far more sportsmen and women in this state than there are left-wing enviro-whackos.  We've got plenty of "number$" in the war chest. And, more importantly, we've got incredibly influential political allies that span the political spectrum that are willing to go bat for us...even though they might not feel inclined to come right out and say it in mixed company.  ;)   

I understand that, and I'm not worried about being outnumbered by left wingers.  I am concerned about a citizen initiative in regards to wolf hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 26, 2017, 11:11:26 AM

Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Even though our population represents a numerical minority in the grand scheme of things, there are far more sportsmen and women in this state than there are left-wing enviro-whackos.  We've got plenty of "number$" in the war chest. And, more importantly, we've got incredibly influential political allies that span the political spectrum that are willing to go bat for us...even though they might not feel inclined to come right out and say it in mixed company.  ;)   

I understand that, and I'm not worried about being outnumbered by left wingers.  I am concerned about a citizen initiative in regards to wolf hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I knew that would happen before the Commission ever adopted a wolf plan. You should expect that in Washington, partnering with CNW and making them stronger is certainly not going to encourage wolf groups to not try an initiative!  :dunno:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 26, 2017, 11:13:02 AM

Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Even though our population represents a numerical minority in the grand scheme of things, there are far more sportsmen and women in this state than there are left-wing enviro-whackos.  We've got plenty of "number$" in the war chest. And, more importantly, we've got incredibly influential political allies that span the political spectrum that are willing to go bat for us...even though they might not feel inclined to come right out and say it in mixed company.  ;)   

You do live in WA, right? A wolf plan so outrageous in its scope as to prevent eventual management. Other predator management which is not designed around science. A governor who stacks the wildlife Commission with animal rights groups and also panders to those groups for campaign donations. And a population of hunters less than 4% of our state's population.  :dunno:

Hunters do have some good political allies, he is correct about that.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: wolfbait on September 26, 2017, 11:17:53 AM
Ranching and hunting are just the start, from there it travels down to everyone who use to enjoy pubic lands.

Remember when CNW and WDFW were doing the wolf push in the late 1980's and 90's, and then the USFWS decided to introduce wolves into the three states that would be hardest to push wolves on once the true wolf impacts came out? And look at us today, with 22 years of history as to what wolves do,  WDFW and fools pretending it's a bran new wolf, needing new studies that have already been done several times over. It's like the stupid leading the ignorant, living in their own little bubble.

Today more of the public is up to speed on the wolves and the impacts, they have come to realize they were lied to by many groups, and their sentiment is SS.



And now the grizzly bear introduction will follow the same bogus trail of lies, the only difference, there are far fewer people being fooled and there is more of a push back.

If things don't change the only wolf control will have to come from the public, the USFWS, WDFW along with their fake environmental partners are agenda driven, an agenda where public lands are off limits and funding for WDFW etc. will come from the tax payer not hunting etc..
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Bushcraft on September 26, 2017, 12:39:46 PM

Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Even though our population represents a numerical minority in the grand scheme of things, there are far more sportsmen and women in this state than there are left-wing enviro-whackos.  We've got plenty of "number$" in the war chest. And, more importantly, we've got incredibly influential political allies that span the political spectrum that are willing to go bat for us...even though they might not feel inclined to come right out and say it in mixed company.  ;)   

You do live in WA, right? A wolf plan so outrageous in its scope as to prevent eventual management. Other predator management which is not designed around science. A governor who stacks the wildlife Commission with animal rights groups and also panders to those groups for campaign donations. And a population of hunters less than 4% of our state's population.  :dunno:

I do. And I'm intimately aware of some of the more egregious fiascos that have taken place over the years, and more recently.  I submit that some of what was more or less allowed to happen rests squarely on the shoulders of sportsmen and women who lacked both the organization and strong sense of unity and purpose that a relatively small group of rabidly leftist enviro-wackos have enjoyed.  However, myself and other influential people within our ranks (and the ranks of our political allies) are working hard to remedy that situation and have had a fair amount of success.

With improved organization, unity and purpose we are increasingly able to leverage significant resources to hit MUCH harder than our single digit minority percentage might otherwise imply.  Big things are coming down the pike...stay tuned!

Regards,

Allen Ernst
SCI Regional Representative
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 01:17:01 PM
I sincerely hope you're right with your predictions. I suspect you're not, however. We just don't have the support from the WDFW and the rest of our government to help ensure the future of hunting and not spread false information. They could well have weighed in on hounding and baiting as the only controllable and dependable means of harvest for bears and cougars but they didn't and the misinformationists won the day. This hasn't changed at all and that's readily apparent with the wolf program. The NE corner of our state is being hammered while the Seattleites are blissfully unaware of the damage these eaters are doing to ranches, ungulates, and communities which depend on hunting and ranching.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 26, 2017, 01:21:41 PM

Thank you for your input!


Hunters don't have the numbers to dictate their world.


Oh, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Even though our population represents a numerical minority in the grand scheme of things, there are far more sportsmen and women in this state than there are left-wing enviro-whackos.  We've got plenty of "number$" in the war chest. And, more importantly, we've got incredibly influential political allies that span the political spectrum that are willing to go bat for us...even though they might not feel inclined to come right out and say it in mixed company.  ;)   

You do live in WA, right? A wolf plan so outrageous in its scope as to prevent eventual management. Other predator management which is not designed around science. A governor who stacks the wildlife Commission with animal rights groups and also panders to those groups for campaign donations. And a population of hunters less than 4% of our state's population.  :dunno:

I do. And I'm intimately aware of some of the more egregious fiascos that have taken place over the years, and more recently.  I submit that some of what was more or less allowed to happen rests squarely on the shoulders of sportsmen and women who lacked both the organization and strong sense of unity and purpose that a relatively small group of rabidly leftist enviro-wackos have enjoyed.  However, myself and other influential people within our ranks (and the ranks of our political allies) are working hard to remedy that situation and have had a fair amount of success.

With improved organization, unity and purpose we are increasingly able to leverage significant resources to hit MUCH harder than our single digit minority percentage might otherwise imply.  Big things are coming down the pike...stay tuned!

Regards,

Allen Ernst
SCI Regional Representative
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 26, 2017, 01:57:44 PM
Thanks bearpaw I feel like one of the few on here who understands what the real threat is

In a correspondence with Mr. Gunnel,  the communications director of CNW,  I brought up  that moose populations in BC, Alberta, Idaho, Montana and Washington had been adversely affected  by the exploding wolf populations. He responded with more misinformation and blamed the shrinking moose populations on ticks.

be very vigilant dealing with CNW and I hope organizations like SCI and RMEF can start stepping up and help sportsmen


It's so easy to see how CNW is cleverly posting little tidbits here and there about how they are helping rural communities and ranchers saying how this helps people and wolves. No doubt they are laughing behind the scenes and patting themselves on the back cheering how they have so cleverly manipulated wolf introduction.

I can tell you this, rural communities lost millions of dollars from hunters who quit coming and by livestock being eaten when wolves over populated in Idaho and Montana, now it's happening in WA. Mark my words, you will see fewer moose permits in WA just about every year until wolf numbers are greatly decreased, which will probably never happen. At least 50% to 60% of the moose are already gone, there are wolf tracks in the trails where there used to be moose tracks.

I used to tell my moose hunters we will see 5 to 10 moose per day, now I don't even want to guide moose hunters in some units because I know it might be tough to find 1 moose on a 5 day hunt!
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 02:24:59 PM
http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/montana-wyoming-trying-to-understand-why-moose-populations-are-plummeting/article_cf1fcb02-9699-56d8-9b34-9b297fd4dc5f.html

Good article on moose declines.

Certainly wolves eat moose.  Ticks are a very significant cause of mortality in WA moose.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2017, 02:48:05 PM
fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 02:53:18 PM
fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?

Do you disagree with the article?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Bob33 on September 26, 2017, 02:54:49 PM
fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?
Ticks a very serious problem for moose in the Northeast.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/13/winter-ticks-exact-heavy-toll-new-england-moose/PmpQ3QAHm9C1imAxkzMhDM/story.html

An insidious pest is killing about 70 percent of moose calves across Maine and New Hampshire, and their deadly work is being aided by warming temperatures and shorter winters that allow the parasites to survive longer, scientists believe.

They are winter ticks, which attach themselves to a single moose by the tens of thousands. Adult females can expand to the size of a grape and engorge themselves with up to four milliliters of blood.

“The moose are being literally drained of blood. This is about as disgusting as it gets out there,” said Pete Pekins, chairman of the Natural Resources Department at the University of New Hampshire.

...
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2017, 02:55:15 PM
fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?

Do you disagree with the article?


no, climate change and parasites have been around far longer than mans meddling (putting in wolves) and isn't part of my frustration.  My frustration is declining moose in wolf stricken areas which the article does allude too before it refocuses on global warming.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2017, 03:01:52 PM
I would support helicopter darting moose, darts that inject ivomec 
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: huntnphool on September 26, 2017, 03:04:00 PM
fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?
Ticks a very serious problem for moose in the Northeast.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/13/winter-ticks-exact-heavy-toll-new-england-moose/PmpQ3QAHm9C1imAxkzMhDM/story.html

An insidious pest is killing about 70 percent of moose calves across Maine and New Hampshire, and their deadly work is being aided by warming temperatures and shorter winters that allow the parasites to survive longer, scientists believe.

They are winter ticks, which attach themselves to a single moose by the tens of thousands. Adult females can expand to the size of a grape and engorge themselves with up to four milliliters of blood.

“The moose are being literally drained of blood. This is about as disgusting as it gets out there,” said Pete Pekins, chairman of the Natural Resources Department at the University of New Hampshire.

...

 This actually makes perfect sense, since so many of the moose are sick with tick related illness, and wolves only attack and kill the sick/weak. :tup:
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2017, 03:05:18 PM
then we got this thread too

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,218704.0.html
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 03:09:02 PM
fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?
Ticks a very serious problem for moose in the Northeast.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/13/winter-ticks-exact-heavy-toll-new-england-moose/PmpQ3QAHm9C1imAxkzMhDM/story.html

An insidious pest is killing about 70 percent of moose calves across Maine and New Hampshire, and their deadly work is being aided by warming temperatures and shorter winters that allow the parasites to survive longer, scientists believe.

They are winter ticks, which attach themselves to a single moose by the tens of thousands. Adult females can expand to the size of a grape and engorge themselves with up to four milliliters of blood.

“The moose are being literally drained of blood. This is about as disgusting as it gets out there,” said Pete Pekins, chairman of the Natural Resources Department at the University of New Hampshire.

...

 This actually makes perfect sense, since so many of the moose are sick with tick related illness, and wolves only attack and kill the sick/weak. :tup:

Or they die before the wolf ever gets there.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 03:09:56 PM
fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?

Do you disagree with the article?


no, climate change and parasites have been around far longer than mans meddling (putting in wolves) and isn't part of my frustration.  My frustration is declining moose in wolf stricken areas which the article does allude too before it refocuses on global warming.

Maybe that's because the other factors are much more significant in the population declines. 
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: KFhunter on September 26, 2017, 03:15:56 PM
Possibly in areas, or even overall across all the states but in WA the moose decline is due to wolves.  They were rebounding and points were starting to matter. 


Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Bob33 on September 26, 2017, 03:21:58 PM
Here's a relatively recent (2016) update of a study on moose demography in Washington: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01859/wdfw01859.pdf
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 26, 2017, 04:01:55 PM
I know that but he advised affected out west too


fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?
Ticks a very serious problem for moose in the Northeast.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/13/winter-ticks-exact-heavy-toll-new-england-moose/PmpQ3QAHm9C1imAxkzMhDM/story.html

An insidious pest is killing about 70 percent of moose calves across Maine and New Hampshire, and their deadly work is being aided by warming temperatures and shorter winters that allow the parasites to survive longer, scientists believe.

They are winter ticks, which attach themselves to a single moose by the tens of thousands. Adult females can expand to the size of a grape and engorge themselves with up to four milliliters of blood.

“The moose are being literally drained of blood. This is about as disgusting as it gets out there,” said Pete Pekins, chairman of the Natural Resources Department at the University of New Hampshire.

...
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 26, 2017, 04:05:47 PM
this conversation needs to come back to the original reason why I posted

from CNW director Friedman
"Mitch Friedman wrote in a letter to the Earth First! Journal. Friedman, a former Earth First!er, was among Washington's first tree-sitters during the 1980s' Timber Wars, and now heads Conservation Northwest",

more wisdom from Mr. Friedman:

 "In 1987, tree-spiking claimed its first known casualty: A California mill worker named George Anderson had his jaw shattered when a shard from a spiked tree, splintered by his band saw, ricocheted into his face. In response to the incident, Dave Foreman said: “It’s unfortunate this worker was injured and I wish him the best. But the real destruction and injury is being perpetrated by Louisiana-Pacific and the Forest Service in liquidating old-growth forests.” In 1988, EF member Mitch Friedman stated that “tree-spiking is not terrorism; it is a justifiably extreme and noble deed.”
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 04:08:21 PM
I know that but he advised affected out west too


fascinating - global warming and ticks, whoda thunk?
Ticks a very serious problem for moose in the Northeast.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/13/winter-ticks-exact-heavy-toll-new-england-moose/PmpQ3QAHm9C1imAxkzMhDM/story.html

An insidious pest is killing about 70 percent of moose calves across Maine and New Hampshire, and their deadly work is being aided by warming temperatures and shorter winters that allow the parasites to survive longer, scientists believe.

They are winter ticks, which attach themselves to a single moose by the tens of thousands. Adult females can expand to the size of a grape and engorge themselves with up to four milliliters of blood.

“The moose are being literally drained of blood. This is about as disgusting as it gets out there,” said Pete Pekins, chairman of the Natural Resources Department at the University of New Hampshire.

...

Ticks ARE a significant problem in WA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Bushcraft on September 26, 2017, 04:23:08 PM
this conversation needs to come back to the original reason why I posted

from CNW director Friedman
"Mitch Friedman wrote in a letter to the Earth First! Journal. Friedman, a former Earth First!er, was among Washington's first tree-sitters during the 1980s' Timber Wars, and now heads Conservation Northwest",

more wisdom from Mr. Friedman:

 "In 1987, tree-spiking claimed its first known casualty: A California mill worker named George Anderson had his jaw shattered when a shard from a spiked tree, splintered by his band saw, ricocheted into his face. In response to the incident, Dave Foreman said: “It’s unfortunate this worker was injured and I wish him the best. But the real destruction and injury is being perpetrated by Louisiana-Pacific and the Forest Service in liquidating old-growth forests.” In 1988, EF member Mitch Friedman stated that “tree-spiking is not terrorism; it is a justifiably extreme and noble deed.”

...and decades later, those continue to be his true colors behind the slimy "moderate" façade that very few in positions of influence actually believe or trust.

Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on September 26, 2017, 06:02:58 PM
I'm not going to defend Mitch's past deeds or statements. Some of them may be indefensible. Though I do think he changed his approach decades ago, instead working to finding common ground with many a former opponent, loggers and ranchers included. Make what you will of that.

Ribka, I'm also not going to respond to your personal attacks, or your obsessive inquisition about my background, motives or positions. I didn't start this thread, you did. I responded civilly, and on this and the Washington fly fishing forum you replied with poorly researched insults and allegations. As I said in my initial response, I've hunted and fished in this state my entire life, and have worked on various natural resource issues for a decade. Working in Seattle and Olympia, I'm far more used to defending myself from anti-hunters than the likes of you. Have some decency if you want a reply.

However at the risk of wading back in here, I'll say this: you may not like Conservation Northwest or the org's work. That's fine. You may not like some of the groups the org has partnered with in the past. Also fine, at times I don't either, and have worked to change who we ally with these days (CNW is now a National Wildlife Federation affiliate, for example, one of America's oldest and largest sportsmen's conservation groups.). You may feel that CNW's past actions, or those of the org's founder, were anti-hunter, anti-logger or otherwise against your worldview. Again, fine. As a passionate hunter and angler myself, I generally disagree, but I can understand why someone might pick from the history and feel that way. Regardless, I'm on this forum to talk hunting issues, not defend my employer's three decades of conservation work from one keyboard warrior.

But what I would urge everyone reading this to consider is the social and political spectrum of decision-making when it comes to wolves, hunting, and other wildlife. Yesterday, two uncompromising groups, both based outside Washington, one a national outfit that leads radical campaigns against hunters and ranchers and is well known for their preference for lawsuits over collaboration, essentially torpedo-d wolf management in Washington, including the Wolf Advisory Group and the lethal removal protocols of the Wolf Plan.

Their broad lawsuit also includes the ridiculous demand that an injunction be issued barring ALL wolf killing in our state, including government culling to resolve persistent livestock depredations.

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/wolf-news/pro-wolf-groups-file-suit-to-try-and-stop-lethal-removals-in-washington/
 (http://nwsportsmanmag.com/wolf-news/pro-wolf-groups-file-suit-to-try-and-stop-lethal-removals-in-washington/)


Ribka, you questioning my legitimacy as a hunter pissed me off. But nowhere near as much as the news of this lawsuit. These groups have undermined wolf management in Washington relentlessly. They've publicly attacked CNW and other groups who've been willing to compromise. Their explosive, no-compromise rhetoric has lead to death threats on my voicemail and those of many of my colleagues. And they would likely be the first candidates to sponsor a citizen's initiative banning all wolf hunting in the states of CA, OR and WA.

Those of us working collaboratively on wolf management in Washington, agree or disagree with us, are doing so in recognition of the fact that wolves are here to stay, and sometimes, wildlife needs to be killed to resolve conflicts or reduce impacts on other vulnerable species. CNW has a strong track record of supporting such compromise. Some of us, myself included, are even willing to state that we hope and expect there will be a well-regulated wolf hunting season in Washington once recovery goals are met, a position I've shared on this forum before.

If you prefer, you can oppose this approach of collaboration and compromise, and tilt at windmills towards a different outcome. Again, that's your right. But I hope anyone intelligent enough to call themselves a sportsman recognizes that we aren't alone in all this decision-making. Say what you want about collaborative conservation groups like CNW, or hunters willing to work with or even for them, there's far worse groups waiting in the wings to tilt the process even farther away from hunters, anglers and rural residents. And while we squabble, they're making big gains.
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: Special T on September 26, 2017, 09:20:37 PM
@CGDucksandDeer
Here are some problems you/CNW face. (You may already recognise this).  What has CNW done for sportsmen? WHY SHOULD WE TRUST CNW when it's founder gone through 3  reinventions/names and has no sportsmen Chops? What are we giving to get with CNW?

All we have heard from you is sportsmen have to compromise or else.... some other big bad Org is Gonna blow our house down, but CNW can soften the blow.... We are a bunch of skeptics so give us your best pitch...  So far all we have heard is a reason to go easy on CNW... Why should I give a hoot about Your org?
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: ribka on September 27, 2017, 05:57:41 AM
Chase -does CNW support trapping and poisoning, the only proven methods endorsed by experienced and educatiated Wildlife managers /bios,to control the exploding wolf populations? It is scientifically proven to be The only  method in the world the past 150 years to control exploding wolf populations


Does CNW endorse shutting and limiting hunting to aid wolf populations to grow? The ended and limited tags in Montana Idaho Wyoming BC Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan because wolves severely ddimished native game populations

Does CNW support all lawful sport hunting that have a long tradition in American culture?


Will CNW pubically partner with hunting outfitters like they have other groups?


Does CNW have close affiliations with any anti hunting groups?

Does CNW think 500 or more wolves in Washington is acceptable ?

Is twenty five per cent growth rates of wolves per year healthy in states with dwindling moose, mountain carribou and elk and mule deer populations?

Will you as a spokesman State that you support prohunting organizations like SCI, NRA, RMEF, ruffed grouse society, ducks unlimited and will CNW partner with them like they have with virulent anti hunting organizations ?


Did your Director , Mitch Friedman ,spike trees that injured poor hard working loggers engaged in a lawful industry that provided materials to build homes for millions of middle class Americans


Will you proudly post a pic of you and the mule deer you just shot- your face visible, on the CNW Facebook page for all your supposedly pro hunting members to see? I see lots of non hunting photos on there and anti hunting rhetoric. If not why?




As CNW spokesperson  simple yes or no answers for the sportsmen on here
Title: Re: Duplicity in the wolf debate
Post by: bearpaw on September 27, 2017, 03:36:42 PM
There is a study that I think Wacoyote posted on here in the past that showed roughly half the moose mortality is from ticks and almost half from wolves. I think it was probably an honest study and I believe it.

But here's the deal, mortality is double in areas with wolves than just ticks, this will bring down the moose population further and also cause recovery of moose populations to take much longer if ever in our lifetimes.

You can't blame all the moose decline on ticks, it's wolves too! And combined they are really hammering the moose!  :twocents:
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal