Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wolves
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostMon Feb 26, 2018 7:41 pm 
Sky Hiker wrote:
Its too bad that the ungulate population will pretty much be non existent after this but that's part of the consequences of the reintroduction.
Horsepucky!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostMon Feb 26, 2018 7:47 pm 
Sky Hiker wrote:
The benefits are so when the grizzly bears are reintroduced they have someone to play with. smile.gif There will be more beavers, willows, cottonwood, bison, but at the expense of elk and deer populations. You will able to have reason to pack your firearm to protect you dog which has to be on a leash for fear of getting eaten. The price of beef and sheep meat will go up to off set their loss. That's the benefits.
Your dog should be on a leash. They chase wildlife.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Feb 26, 2018 7:49 pm 
No, it wasn't an "unnecessary personal attack" at all. It was a brick upside your head to make you stop and re-examine your own thought processing and priorities. The problem in trying to carry on any kind of discussion with "pro wolf" people is that they're already convinced that they're right, without questioning the information they've been reading on various websites, 99% of which is BS. The first time I heard about wolf reintroduction was in the late 1980s - long before the current-day debate about wolves and hunters whining about elk populations and cattle ranchers demanding that state wildlife agencies make a greater effort to protect their industry. At that time it seemed like a great idea to me. I have spent a lifetime visiting an area that is a textbook case of what happens to an ecosystem and a landscape in the absence of the apex predator. The notion of wolf reintroduction seemed like a good idea that might address some of the issues we currently face. In the real world, however, what has happened is that wolf populations increased at a much faster rate than any wildlife managers had anticipated; depredations of livestock have far exceeded original estimates; the wolves have not migrated into the areas with the largest ungulate populations in Washington State (where there is the potential of them having some "benefit" for riparian ecosystems); the riparian ecosystems in those areas where there are healthy wolf populations are no better or worse than they were before; and the anadromous salmonid return runs continue to dwindle. Do you need more evidence that this grand experiment is not working? In the meantime, millions of tax dollars are being funneled down a bottomless hole for "wolf management" that benefits....... who? what? Gee, I'm terribly sorry your feelings are hurt, but I see this entire thing as one gigantic and very expensive fiasco for which there doesn't seem to be any end, and we as a society have far more pressing needs than wasting resources of manpower and money on projects like this which lack clearly defined goals (read: stable goalposts) and have some kind of end game plan. This one does not; it has been, is, and will continue to be a never-ending, very expensive charade that benefits nobody other than the people working for Defenders of Wildlife and similar groups.
butthurt report
butthurt report

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostMon Feb 26, 2018 7:53 pm 
Ski wrote:
Per a local reporter (that most of the members here claim to be a credible source, and who has a pretty good reputation among peers), WDFW spent about $2.5 million on "wolf" during 2015-2016. In the meantime, the Washington State Legislature cannot adequately fund our public school system (and the boondoggle "Sound Transit") without raising local properly taxes by double digits. Maybe wolf proponents feel that is a good thing; when lower and middle-income homeowners can't pay their property taxes, there will be more homeless people wandering around who will provide an abundant protein supply for the wolves.
Boy you are full of straw men today.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
SwitchbackFisher
Boot buster



Joined: 24 Feb 2018
Posts: 364 | TRs | Pics
Location: Wa
SwitchbackFisher
Boot buster
PostMon Feb 26, 2018 7:59 pm 
Ski wrote:
No, it wasn't an "unnecessary personal attack" at all. It was a brick upside your head to make you stop and re-examine your own thought processing and priorities. The problem in trying to carry on any kind of discussion with "pro wolf" people is that they're already convinced that they're right, without questioning the information they've been reading on various websites, 99% of which is BS. The first time I heard about wolf reintroduction was in the late 1980s - long before the current-day debate about wolves and hunters whining about elk populations and cattle ranchers demanding that state wildlife agencies make a greater effort to protect their industry. At that time it seemed like a great idea to me. I have spent a lifetime visiting an area that is a textbook case of what happens to an ecosystem and a landscape in the absence of the apex predator. The notion of wolf reintroduction seemed like a good idea that might address some of the issues we currently face. In the real world, however, what has happened is that wolf populations increased at a much faster rate than any wildlife managers had anticipated; depredations of livestock have far exceeded original estimates; the wolves have not migrated into the areas with the largest ungulate populations in Washington State (where there is the potential of them having some "benefit" for riparian ecosystems); the riparian ecosystems in those areas where there are healthy wolf populations are no better or worse than they were before; and the anadromous salmonid return runs continue to dwindle. Do you need more evidence that this grand experiment is not working? In the meantime, millions of tax dollars are being funneled down a bottomless hole for "wolf management" that benefits....... who? what? Gee, I'm terribly sorry your feelings are hurt, but I see this entire thing as one gigantic and very expensive fiasco for which there doesn't seem to be any end, and we as a society have far more pressing needs than wasting resources of manpower and money on projects like this which lack clearly defined goals (read: stable goalposts) and have some kind of end game plan. This one does not; it has been, is, and will continue to be a never-ending, very expensive charade that benefits nobody other than the people working for Defenders of Wildlife and similar groups.
butthurt report
butthurt report
Don't worry my feelings are not hurt, I thought you may have interest in an intelligent conversation and wanted to provide you with where you lost focus on that, however as you have made it abundantly clear that is not your interest based on this post.

I may not be the smartest, I may not be the strongest, but I don't want to be. I only want to be the best I can be.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 1316 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostMon Feb 26, 2018 8:11 pm 
gb wrote:
Sky Hiker wrote:
The benefits are so when the grizzly bears are reintroduced they have someone to play with. smile.gif There will be more beavers, willows, cottonwood, bison, but at the expense of elk and deer populations. You will able to have reason to pack your firearm to protect you dog which has to be on a leash for fear of getting eaten. The price of beef and sheep meat will go up to off set their loss. That's the benefits.
Your dog should be on a leash. They chase wildlife.
Where did I miss him saying he had a dog? confused.gif

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sky Hiker
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 1469 | TRs | Pics
Location: outside
Sky Hiker
Member
PostTue Feb 27, 2018 6:29 am 
gb wrote:
Sky Hiker wrote:
The benefits are so when the grizzly bears are reintroduced they have someone to play with. smile.gif There will be more beavers, willows, cottonwood, bison, but at the expense of elk and deer populations. You will able to have reason to pack your firearm to protect you dog which has to be on a leash for fear of getting eaten. The price of beef and sheep meat will go up to off set their loss. That's the benefits.
Your dog should be on a leash. They chase wildlife.
Go crawl back in your hole

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Feb 27, 2018 8:14 am 
Sky Hiker wrote:
gb wrote:
Sky Hiker wrote:
The benefits are so when the grizzly bears are reintroduced they have someone to play with. smile.gif There will be more beavers, willows, cottonwood, bison, but at the expense of elk and deer populations. You will able to have reason to pack your firearm to protect you dog which has to be on a leash for fear of getting eaten. The price of beef and sheep meat will go up to off set their loss. That's the benefits.
Your dog should be on a leash. They chase wildlife.
Go crawl back in your hole
Back at ya jackass.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16088 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostTue Feb 27, 2018 8:35 am 
Why isn't this thread buried in Stewardship like all the other Wolf threads?

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
BigBrunyon
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1450 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!!
BigBrunyon
Member
PostTue Feb 27, 2018 11:51 am 
Look if its a wolf in the woods and your there youo better watch out!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
timberghost
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 1316 | TRs | Pics
timberghost
Member
PostTue Feb 27, 2018 5:55 pm 
Not to worry Sky he's not worth the time.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Mar 28, 2018 12:59 pm 
if you want to PM me your mailing addresses I'll be happy to send you a couple gift certificates for crying towels.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostThu Mar 29, 2018 6:52 am 
Confirming what Ski wrote:
What may or may not have happened in Yellowstone (or any number of other places where Beschta and Ripple conducted their studies to support their "trophic cascade" theory) may not necessarily be the case here and now.
"Channel-planform evolution in four rivers of Olympic National Park, Washington, USA: the roles of physical drivers and trophic cascades", Amy E. East, Kurt J. Jenkins, Patricia J. Happe,et al., Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 42, 1011–1032 (2017). Abstract. Full paper. "We use a 74-year aerial photographic record of the Hoh, Queets, Quinault, and Elwha Rivers, Olympic National Park, Washington, USA, to investigate whether physical or... excessive elk impacts after wolves were extirpated a century ago are the dominant drivers of channel planform in these gravel-bed rivers. We infer no correspondence between channel evolution and elk abundance, suggesting that trophic-cascade effects in this setting are subsidiary to physical controls on channel morphology. Our findings differ from previous interpretations of Olympic National Park fluvial dynamics and contrast with the classic example of Yellowstone National Park, where legacy effects of elk overuse are apparent in channel morphology; we attribute these differences to hydrologic regime and large-wood availability."

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
SwitchbackFisher
Boot buster



Joined: 24 Feb 2018
Posts: 364 | TRs | Pics
Location: Wa
SwitchbackFisher
Boot buster
PostFri Mar 30, 2018 9:07 pm 
Ski wrote:
if you want to PM me your mailing addresses I'll be happy to send you a couple gift certificates for crying towels.
Did it take you a entire month to come up with that? 😂😂😂

I may not be the smartest, I may not be the strongest, but I don't want to be. I only want to be the best I can be.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
tmatlack
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 2854 | TRs | Pics
tmatlack
Member
PostSat Mar 31, 2018 2:32 am 
Malachai Constant wrote:
Why isn't this thread buried in Stewardship like all the other Wolf threads?
All, Ahhhh, the 1st sensible post in all the brouhaha. Thanks Mal. Tom

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wolves
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum