Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Wolves => Topic started by: bobcat on July 10, 2018, 06:58:04 PM


Advertise Here
Title: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: bobcat on July 10, 2018, 06:58:04 PM
Quote
Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf Scientist?

Rob Wielgus was one of America’s pre-eminent experts on large carnivores. Then he ran afoul of the enemies of the wolf.

By Christopher Solomon

July 5, 2018

You might not guess from looking at him that Rob Wielgus was until recently a tenured professor of wildlife ecology. Wielgus likes to spend time in the backwoods of the American West that lie off the edge of most tourist maps, and he dresses the part: motorcycle leathers, tattoos on both forearms, the stringy hairs of a goatee dangling like lichen from his lower lip. Atop his bald head he often wears a battered leather bush hat of the type seen at Waylon Jennings concerts. A Camel smolders in his face like a fuse. The first time I called him, he told me that he couldn’t chat because he was riding his Harley home from the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota.

When we met last fall, Wielgus, who is 61, wasn’t wearing his bush hat, however, but a straw cowboy hat pulled low over his eyes. He was, he explained, in disguise. We had rendezvoused in Republic, a faded former mining town of about a thousand people in the northeastern part of Washington State. Stores wore boomtown facades to tempt passing drivers and their dollars to linger. But this was mid-October: Pickup trucks throttled past on the main drag, hauling hay and firewood for a winter that would slump down from Canada any day.

Wielgus had spent years in the surrounding woods doing research, and he loved the area. Now he considered it hostile territory. Before he pushed through the swinging doors of a bar, he paused and lifted an untucked shirt to show me the black handle of a .357 handgun poking from the front pocket of his jeans. “Too many death threats,” he said. “I never started carrying this till I started studying wolves.”

Not long ago, Wielgus was a respected researcher at Washington State University in Pullman, in the far eastern part of the state, with his own prosperous lab and several graduate students under his guidance. His specialty was North American apex predators — mountain lions and bears. Over a 35-year career, Wielgus has published surprising research about how these animals behave, especially once their paths cross with civilization. Unlike some wildlife research, which can be esoteric, Wielgus’s work by its nature has concrete, real-world implications. And Wielgus, by his nature, hasn’t been shy about emerging from academia to tell wildlife managers, ranchers and politicians exactly how they have screwed up and why they should pay more attention to him and his findings. He is accustomed to being the least-popular man in the room.

Wielgus had no idea how unpopular he could get, though, until he began to study wolves. By the time I met him, his academic reputation lay in shreds. His lab was essentially shuttered. He was $50,000 in debt, he said, and he had had to pull his daughters out of college. His career, he told me, was over.

More here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/magazine/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-wolf-scientist.html
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Bob33 on July 10, 2018, 07:40:47 PM
The full article is lengthy but interesting.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Special T on July 10, 2018, 07:56:56 PM
Lol so he Carrie's a 357 into a bar huh? Interesting tid but to share... Some how I think the state won't take that admission as seriously as if it was some one else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Nwgunner on July 10, 2018, 08:18:35 PM
Good read.  Thanks for the link.  Never thought I would agree with UW over WSU for anything.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Curly on July 10, 2018, 08:57:15 PM
Decent article.  I think he got a couple things wrong,  but at least it seemed like he tried to approach the article from a neutral perspective.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Whitpirate on July 10, 2018, 09:25:10 PM
Lol so he Carrie's a 357 into a bar huh? Interesting tid but to share... Some how I think the state won't take that admission as seriously as if it was some one else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I picked up on that immediately too and commented on Facebook.  Elicited a few "what are you doing trying to get him into trouble?" PM's.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: KFhunter on July 10, 2018, 09:32:40 PM
He gotta pack a 357 'cause the ranchers are gonna kill him  :chuckle:   :rolleyes:   ya right, he's so full of BS. 

quote from the article:
They also knew that the ranch had set salt blocks nearby, which attract cattle, who lick them for the needed minerals. But even after the first livestock was confirmed killed in early July, no one moved the salt blocks, “and no one moved the livestock,” Wielgus said. Trail cameras used to monitor the pack showed that cows were all around the area through July. Once the area’s deer, a preferred prey, were scared off by the cows, wolves opportunistically attacked cattle, he said. Wielgus insists to this day that the Diamond M’s patriarch, Len McIrvin, could have been prodded by the state to take steps — quickly moving the salt blocks, removing cattle from the den site — to avoid serious problems.

those blocks have been there for years, the salt is in the dirt, the locations are memorized by the cattle.  WDFW did not tell Diamond M the wolves were "a couple miles away", which in that country might as well be 50 miles, you aren't going to know wolves are 2 miles away  :bash: 

Cattle do not "scare off all the deer"  total utter BS lie, the deer will walk right through a herd of cattle..the freaking wolves scare the deer off (or eat them)

"wolves opportunistically attacked cattle" the only true thing in his quote.

He's blaming Diamond M for utilizing a grazing lease they lawfully acquired when WDFW didn't tell them a wolf den was nearby?  no one asked them to move the salt, yet Weilgus said they did it intentionally (dropped the cows on top of a wolf den). 

Weilgus is a fraud and liar.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: buglebrush on July 10, 2018, 10:14:28 PM
He gotta pack a 357 'cause the ranchers are gonna kill him  :chuckle:   :rolleyes:   ya right, he's so full of BS. 

quote from the article:
They also knew that the ranch had set salt blocks nearby, which attract cattle, who lick them for the needed minerals. But even after the first livestock was confirmed killed in early July, no one moved the salt blocks, “and no one moved the livestock,” Wielgus said. Trail cameras used to monitor the pack showed that cows were all around the area through July. Once the area’s deer, a preferred prey, were scared off by the cows, wolves opportunistically attacked cattle, he said. Wielgus insists to this day that the Diamond M’s patriarch, Len McIrvin, could have been prodded by the state to take steps — quickly moving the salt blocks, removing cattle from the den site — to avoid serious problems.

those blocks have been there for years, the salt is in the dirt, the locations are memorized by the cattle.  WDFW did not tell Diamond M the wolves were "a couple miles away", which in that country might as well be 50 miles, you aren't going to know wolves are 2 miles away  :bash: 

Cattle do not "scare off all the deer"  total utter BS lie, the deer will walk right through a herd of cattle..the freaking wolves scare the deer off (or eat them)

"wolves opportunistically attacked cattle" the only true thing in his quote.

He's blaming Diamond M for utilizing a grazing lease they lawfully acquired when WDFW didn't tell them a wolf den was nearby?  no one asked them to move the salt, yet Weilgus said they did it intentionally (dropped the cows on top of a wolf den). 

Weilgus is a fraud and liar.

 :yeah:
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 10, 2018, 10:38:00 PM
sounds like a drama queen
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 11, 2018, 07:19:42 AM
Poor Wielgus. Unfairly targeted for fudging data to shore up his personal views. What's science coming to when you can't shape it to your liking?
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: wolfbait on July 11, 2018, 08:34:16 AM
He gotta pack a 357 'cause the ranchers are gonna kill him  :chuckle:   :rolleyes:   ya right, he's so full of BS. 

quote from the article:
They also knew that the ranch had set salt blocks nearby, which attract cattle, who lick them for the needed minerals. But even after the first livestock was confirmed killed in early July, no one moved the salt blocks, “and no one moved the livestock,” Wielgus said. Trail cameras used to monitor the pack showed that cows were all around the area through July. Once the area’s deer, a preferred prey, were scared off by the cows, wolves opportunistically attacked cattle, he said. Wielgus insists to this day that the Diamond M’s patriarch, Len McIrvin, could have been prodded by the state to take steps — quickly moving the salt blocks, removing cattle from the den site — to avoid serious problems.

those blocks have been there for years, the salt is in the dirt, the locations are memorized by the cattle.  WDFW did not tell Diamond M the wolves were "a couple miles away", which in that country might as well be 50 miles, you aren't going to know wolves are 2 miles away  :bash: 

Cattle do not "scare off all the deer"  total utter BS lie, the deer will walk right through a herd of cattle..the freaking wolves scare the deer off (or eat them)

"wolves opportunistically attacked cattle" the only true thing in his quote.

He's blaming Diamond M for utilizing a grazing lease they lawfully acquired when WDFW didn't tell them a wolf den was nearby?  no one asked them to move the salt, yet Weilgus said they did it intentionally (dropped the cows on top of a wolf den). 

Weilgus is a fraud and liar.

 :yeah:

 :yeah: X2

He had a lot of company at WDFW..
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 11, 2018, 09:10:55 AM
Had?
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Cougartail on July 11, 2018, 09:23:17 AM
Cattle scare deer? Interesting??? I'll have 3 of what ever he took..
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: bearpaw on July 11, 2018, 09:26:57 AM
He gotta pack a 357 'cause the ranchers are gonna kill him  :chuckle:   :rolleyes:   ya right, he's so full of BS. 

quote from the article:
They also knew that the ranch had set salt blocks nearby, which attract cattle, who lick them for the needed minerals. But even after the first livestock was confirmed killed in early July, no one moved the salt blocks, “and no one moved the livestock,” Wielgus said. Trail cameras used to monitor the pack showed that cows were all around the area through July. Once the area’s deer, a preferred prey, were scared off by the cows, wolves opportunistically attacked cattle, he said. Wielgus insists to this day that the Diamond M’s patriarch, Len McIrvin, could have been prodded by the state to take steps — quickly moving the salt blocks, removing cattle from the den site — to avoid serious problems.

those blocks have been there for years, the salt is in the dirt, the locations are memorized by the cattle.  WDFW did not tell Diamond M the wolves were "a couple miles away", which in that country might as well be 50 miles, you aren't going to know wolves are 2 miles away  :bash: 

Cattle do not "scare off all the deer"  total utter BS lie, the deer will walk right through a herd of cattle..the freaking wolves scare the deer off (or eat them)

"wolves opportunistically attacked cattle" the only true thing in his quote.

He's blaming Diamond M for utilizing a grazing lease they lawfully acquired when WDFW didn't tell them a wolf den was nearby?  no one asked them to move the salt, yet Weilgus said they did it intentionally (dropped the cows on top of a wolf den). 

Weilgus is a fraud and liar.

 :yeah:  Wielgus is just an anti-hunter who tries to force his beliefs onto the whole state! He is full of it, my best deer hunting in this state is on ranches that I hunt that are owned by cattle producers. The deer graze in the same fields with the cattle, they actually come from halfway up the mountain down into the fields to eat with the cattle. They could care less that the cattle are there. KF is exactly right, salt stays in the ground forever, until the animals consume all the dirt that has any salt residue from years of rains. The guy should have been fired after his voodoo research was exposed!
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Cougartail on July 11, 2018, 09:32:28 AM
A herd of cattle is the safest place for deer. Plenty of eyes looking around make a great early warning system!
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on July 11, 2018, 09:36:09 AM
Pretty good article.  I could edit it to improve accuracy from my perspective, based on hearing Weilgus's statements first hand on KPQ radio and having read some of the reanalysis of Weilgus's data.  However, for an outside journalist trying to get the story right, he did well.  I give it a solid B+.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Special T on July 11, 2018, 09:46:56 AM
Pretty good article.  I could edit it to improve accuracy from my perspective, based on hearing Weilgus's statements first hand on KPQ radio and having read some of the reanalysis of Weilgus's data.  However, for an outside journalist trying to get the story right, he did well.  I give it a solid B+.

Since you have a unique perspective I would love to hear about the the mistakes the article it made. Are they that different than what most sportsmen can see obviously?
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on July 11, 2018, 10:03:43 AM
Pretty good article.  I could edit it to improve accuracy from my perspective, based on hearing Weilgus's statements first hand on KPQ radio and having read some of the reanalysis of Weilgus's data.  However, for an outside journalist trying to get the story right, he did well.  I give it a solid B+.

Since you have a unique perspective I would love to hear about the the mistakes the article it made. Are they that different than what most sportsmen can see obviously?
Not that different, but my complaint about Weilgus is stronger than what is acknowledged in the article.  He flat out lied in media interviews in order to vilify ranchers he didn't like, crossing a hard line between science and activism that an ethical scientific researcher does not do.  Unfortunately, in the last 20 years in particular, there has been an increasing trend of a split between scientific credibility of real scientists who adhere to the scientific method and strictly separate what is scientifically and statistically demonstrated and speculation about what is unknown; and those activists who may have the same credentials but believe that an issue is so socially important that they skew information to indicate that the data scientifically supporting  their side of a cause is so robust that the science of the issue is settled.  This is scientific and academic misconduct and should not be protected by tenured status. 

Weilgus and his supporters have done a hatchet job on WSU administration when his termination/settlement is absolutely justified based solely on his misconduct.  That's my opinion.   
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: bearpaw on July 11, 2018, 10:39:27 AM
These are quotes from Wielgus in the story, these sound like rants from an anti-hunting activist rather than quotes from a professional scientist! I think his own rants explain Wielgus situation pretty well! Why would any university wanting to employ professional scientists want anyone who would make these types of unprofessional and biased comments which clearly indicate a bias and an unbecoming attitude?  :dunno:

Quote
“I just don’t want to go where the pups were gunned down,” he said.

Quote
‘I’m not gonna mince my words and pretend to be a nice diplomatic guy, ’cause I’m not. I’m a pissed-off scientist.’

Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Special T on July 11, 2018, 10:40:17 AM
Interesting. I concur especially since I've listened to a bunch of Eric& Brett Weinstein, and Sam Harrisions discussions... whom are left of center and point the same thing out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: packmule on July 11, 2018, 10:41:07 AM
Classic example of a “researcher” who is unable to separate science from ego and personal belief.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: bearpaw on July 11, 2018, 10:56:11 AM
I know the Profanity area extremely well, I hunted it as a kid in the 70's and have chased cougar on just about every mountain in the whole area, in fact we caught a P&Y world record cougar very close to there in 1987, I used to set a big camp and guided many deer hunters in all that country. Cattle were being grazed there during all those years and were grazed long before I ever started hunting there in the 70's. It used to be great deer hunting, the cattle had little effect on the deer. What made the big difference is when the state outlawed hound hunting of cougar and then Wielgus' bogus cougar studies prompted WDFW to reduce boot hunting of cougar. Big cat numbers went through the roof, and now wolves are further decimating the deer population. In effect, Wielgus himself is probably more responsible for fewer deer in the entire state than any other single person! I don't even waste my time deer hunting in that country anymore, there are other less impacted places to hunt until predators are somehow brought under reasonable control in that area.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on July 11, 2018, 11:08:51 AM
As a few others said above, not a bad article, but the reader needs to get to the very end (below) for the details on what really happened with the Profanity fiasco. And how it set progress for wolf management and relative agreement between ranchers, hunters, conservationists and agencies three steps backward by inflaming the public and riling up under-informed audiences.

I hope those who still worship Wielgus, including local groups like The Lands Council and Kettle Range Conservation Group, and out-of-state hardliners like CBD, finally accept his irresponsible actions and stop treating him like a martyr. 


The Profanity saga is a complicated one, more nuanced than in Wielgus’s telling, with accounts that turn on details that I have been unable to reconcile. But it does seem that Wielgus, in his anger, exaggerated some statements he made to the newspaper. The rancher didn’t know of the den’s location when he first loosed his cattle a few miles away, said Donny Martorello, the wolf-policy lead for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and he cooperated with wildlife officials. The situation that summer was “dynamic,” Martorello said, with the wolves moving around the area quite a bit. Wolves and cattle-grazing areas overlap almost everywhere in the state, he concluded: “To think we’re going to stop all conflict is not realistic.”

I thought of what I had heard a few times from people who knew Wielgus, both fans and critics: He was a man bearing a valuable message: that with more deterrence, you can reduce livestock deaths. Handled more deftly, the incident could have been a chance to talk more constructively about how to manage wolves better going forward, said Paula Swedeen, policy director of Conservation Northwest, whose group is trying to bring back wolves while bridging the divide with ranchers.

What doubly frustrated some people about the Profanity incident is that, after years of mistrust and false starts, the warring sides finally had reached a tentative détente and were starting to move forward, albeit carefully, they said. But by attacking the rancher and getting some things wrong, Wielgus “ruined the credibility of his own work and the students’ work,” Swedeen said.

The state’s wolf population, meanwhile, was growing by about 30 percent annually. This spring the federal government announced that it was reviewing the status of Canis lupus in the Lower 48 and, by year’s end, could issue a proposal to revise the wolf’s status, possibly to reduce protection for the animal. But for now, and despite occasional poaching, sanctioned shooting and rough-and-tumble human politics, the wolves were doing pretty well.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: bearpaw on July 11, 2018, 11:24:41 AM
Here's the problem I have with the article. It tries to come off as being informative of both sides, some credit there, but if you consider all the little comments and quotes made by the author it is clearly biased and makes it appear as Wielgus and wolves have been treated unfairly. For those reasons I have to give the story a C-, and that probably should be a D do to the number of iterations by the author.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: KFhunter on July 11, 2018, 11:29:13 AM
When will WDFW throw out the current Cougar plan?  They know it's based on flawed science, it should be vacated immediately and the old plan reinstated temporarily until a new plan can be implemented properly.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Special T on July 11, 2018, 11:59:36 AM
Wielgus was thrown under the bus because the issue is politically expediiant. Many things at the WDFW are dictated from the governors office.

You can only negotiate when both parties operate in good faith and it's been proven that at least one side isn't willing to do so.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Shawn Ryan on July 11, 2018, 12:33:32 PM
The self proclaimed title of "Wolf Pimp" just might make a fella think that Wielgus is biased. But I'm probably jumping to a conclusion.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 11, 2018, 12:44:42 PM
The self proclaimed title of "Wolf Pimp" just might make a fella think that Wielgus is biased. But I'm probably jumping to a conclusion.

It's obvious you're a wolf hater.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Curly on July 11, 2018, 01:58:19 PM
I thought the article made it evident that Wielgus is/was biased.  But maybe that was because I already knew about Wielgus' bias and flawed work...........
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: bearpaw on July 11, 2018, 02:01:56 PM
I thought the article made it evident that Wielgus is/was biased.  But maybe that was because I already knew about Wielgus' bias and flawed work...........

My reading goggles might be shaded a bit too because I've watched the mule deer population in the northeast be devastated by overpopulated cougars!
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: WSU on July 11, 2018, 02:11:25 PM
I thought the article made it evident that Wielgus is/was biased.  But maybe that was because I already knew about Wielgus' bias and flawed work...........

That's how I read it.  It read to me like Wielgus was based and not accurate, but also didn't falsify the data in his studies.  Like other studies, other science folks had different conclusions. 

The main takeaway for me was confirmation of what we all already knew: wolves are a hot button issue with sometimes over-zealous people on both sides and no way to make everyone happy.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Caseyd on July 11, 2018, 02:11:48 PM
When will WDFW throw out the current Cougar plan?  They know it's based on flawed science, it should be vacated immediately and the old plan reinstated temporarily until a new plan can be implemented properly.

Once anyone who has ever bought a license bands together and files a class action lawsuit.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Doublelunger on July 11, 2018, 03:26:31 PM
The self proclaimed title of "Wolf Pimp" just might make a fella think that Wielgus is biased. But I'm probably jumping to a conclusion.

Not sure if it was self proclaimed...definitely embraced though.

 (Chulo lobo — Spanish for “wolf pimp,” a slur someone once called Wielgus — is stenciled on his Harley’s gas tank.)
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Nwgunner on July 11, 2018, 07:52:44 PM
Quote from: KFhunter link=topic=229055.msg3051806#rebuked date=1531333753
When will WDFW throw out the current Cougar plan?  They know it's based on flawed science, it should be vacated immediately and the old plan reinstated temporarily until a new plan can be implemented properly.

That's a great point.  Per the article his research was directly attributed to establishing the guidelines of the new cougar plan.  UW directly rebuked his research.  A second study came to an altogether different conclusion.  Why is this Wielgus research held to a gold standard and these other institutions results are not being considered.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: wolfbait on July 11, 2018, 10:14:21 PM
Quote from: KFhunter link=topic=229055.msg3051806#rebuked date=1531333753
When will WDFW throw out the current Cougar plan?  They know it's based on flawed science, it should be vacated immediately and the old plan reinstated temporarily until a new plan can be implemented properly.

That's a great point.  Per the article his research was directly attributed to establishing the guidelines of the new cougar plan.  UW directly rebuked his research.  A second study came to an altogether different conclusion.  Why is this Wielgus research held to a gold standard and these other institutions results are not being considered.

WDF&wolves want to end hunting in WA, look at their thirty year plan.

Protection of predators is ruining hunting in many areas, and the whole state will see the impact eventually.



Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: buglebrush on July 11, 2018, 11:10:04 PM
Quote from: KFhunter link=topic=229055.msg3051806#rebuked date=1531333753
When will WDFW throw out the current Cougar plan?  They know it's based on flawed science, it should be vacated immediately and the old plan reinstated temporarily until a new plan can be implemented properly.

That's a great point.  Per the article his research was directly attributed to establishing the guidelines of the new cougar plan.  UW directly rebuked his research.  A second study came to an altogether different conclusion.  Why is this Wielgus research held to a gold standard and these other institutions results are not being considered.

WDF&wolves want to end hunting in WA, look at their thirty year plan.

Protection of predators is ruining hunting in many areas, and the whole state will see the impact eventually.

 :yeah:
I've said this before.  Where are the wdfw employee's?  Surely at least a couple of them care enough to put their job  on the line, and speak out against these horrendous management practices?  Just once I'd like to read a biologists report that states how the wdfw's ridiculous predator management is affecting our ungulates.  Every single one of them is culpable in this despicable destruction of our wildlife. 

Cue the wdfw apologists.   :bash:
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Caseyd on July 12, 2018, 12:44:55 AM
Quote from: KFhunter link=topic=229055.msg3051806#rebuked date=1531333753
When will WDFW throw out the current Cougar plan?  They know it's based on flawed science, it should be vacated immediately and the old plan reinstated temporarily until a new plan can be implemented properly.

That's a great point.  Per the article his research was directly attributed to establishing the guidelines of the new cougar plan.  UW directly rebuked his research.  A second study came to an altogether different conclusion.  Why is this Wielgus research held to a gold standard and these other institutions results are not being considered.

WDF&wolves want to end hunting in WA, look at their thirty year plan.

Protection of predators is ruining hunting in many areas, and the whole state will see the impact eventually.

 :yeah:
I've said this before.  Where are the wdfw employee's?  Surely at least a couple of them care enough to put their job  on the line, and speak out against these horrendous management practices?  Just once I'd like to read a biologists report that states how the wdfw's ridiculous predator management is affecting our ungulates.  Every single one of them is culpable in this despicable destruction of our wildlife. 

Cue the wdfw apologists.   :bash:

Cause all the ones who gave a crap retired in the past 10 years.
Title: Re: New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus
Post by: Humptulips on July 12, 2018, 01:00:49 AM
When will WDFW throw out the current Cougar plan?  They know it's based on flawed science, it should be vacated immediately and the old plan reinstated temporarily until a new plan can be implemented properly.

My understanding is DFW is in the process of writing a new cougar management plan right now.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal