Forum Index > Stewardship > Wolves cause researcher to climb tree in Okanogan Co. - Heli sent in for rescue
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4953 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 08, 2018 5:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Dave Workman wrote:
gb wrote:
WDFW says on their website that there is no evidence in Washington of wolves having any impact on game. They also say the population will balance itself with the environment and deer are going to die regardless the cause; be it hunters, cougars and bears and dogs, or disease.

Washington of course, is not Idaho or Montana so we can rule that out as you do disease.

Well, a fair number of sportsmen and women (people who hunt and are hardly enamored with the WDFW) might argue that the agency is a bit overweight with wolf advocates and understaffed by "game" biologists (who understand what user group pays the bills). If that is the case, and I'm not saying it is, there would be reasonable doubt about admitted/ acknowledged wolf impact on game...we don't want to bad mouth our canine brothers, or whatever.

Besides, I identified cougars and, to a lesser extent, bears for the predation. Now, if someone were to suggest that mountain lions and bears aren't killing deer and elk, that would be delusional. wink.gif

Overall I don't disagree with your post, however, the part about reasonable doubt of WDFW studies is innuendo and a bit like Trump saying "People are saying". I always immediately doubt his veracity when he prefaces statements in that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4953 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 08, 2018 6:18 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
gb wrote:
And an ill educated opinion at that. Too much Faux.

Perhaps Dave is more well-versed on exact numbers, but my understanding is that sales of hunting licenses in Washington State are in decline.

The reason for the decline nationwide in sales of hunting and fishing licenses is admittedly open to debate, but it cannot be argued that there is (and has been for decades) a portion of that user constituency that has become disillusioned (or disgusted) with the mismanagement of the resources by WDFW.

You can find a complete history of the sales of Fish and Wildlife Licenses here: https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/hunting.htm

I just looked at Washington and every five years and there are not that many fewer licenses, but the sport is certainly not growing, but demographics are also shifting and much unused private land has seen a large increase in remote home building as a hugely growing population encroaches on wild lands......so who knows. Hiking saw little change with mostly an older and aging population in the Washington Cascades in my active lifetime until the past 7-10 years when many younger folks started appearing on the trails. A look at hunter's comments on the Theodore Roosevelt site indicated that a good portion of responding hunter's just found not only licenses, but hunting equipment too expensive. That should come as no surprise as prices on most everything have outpaced income for most of America. This economic effect clearly shows when you review the USFWS data for the years that lead top to the 2007-2008-2009 near depression. Licenses peaked strongly just before the crash and subsequently decreased.


Quote:
The decline in sales of sport fishing licenses was well known in the late 1980s. I personally cannot remember the last time I purchased a fishing license, and the reason I stopped buying them was solely because of WDFW's incompetence in managing the fisheries resource.

There are two completely different animals here. Sportfishing in freshwater lakes is dependent on WDFW management of the resource. Sportfishing and results on saltwater really have more to do with overfishing (including commercial) and radical reductions in salmon for many reasons. The most obvious are too many people eating salmon and the second degradation of the number of salmon streams. Look what is happening to the Puget Orcas.

Quote:
You will note in the above-cited WDFW press release that they are forecasting a $30 million dollar budget shortfall for the next biennium.
Presumably they hope to make up that shortfall from the Washington State general fund.
This is not the way WDFW was originally set up - decades ago WDFW collected a good amount of money from sales of fishing and hunting licenses, and the astronomical budget shortfalls we currently see were not an issue.

Whether or not WDFW claims that the wolf has no impact on game populations doesn't change the fact that they're spending a lot of tax dollars on "wolf management" that they apparently don't have.
In addition to the estimated $1.5 million spent on "wolf management" during the last biennium by WDFW (see citation in post just below the WDFW press release URL), they are also spending a lot of money on Mazama Pocket Gophers, Pygmy Rabbits, and God-only-knows how many other animals that are listed as TES (Threatened or Endangered Species.)

This, of course is a bit disingenuous as you well know. In this day and age 1-1/2 million over two years is peanuts in comparison to the shortfall in budget. Everything in this day and age costs much more and it shouldn't be surprising that income from licenses for a more or less fixed resource considering economics in the United States is not rising comensurately.

Quote:
What happened in Yellowstone National Park has thus far not happened here within the borders of Washington State.
According to the Washington State Wolf Management Plan "The first fully documented breeding pack [in Washington State] was confirmed in 2008." The passing of ten years should have allowed ample enough time to realize the putative "benefits" touted in the Beschta-Ripple papers, which are the de facto foundation of all of the "pro wolf" arguments.

Let them revise their game plan and invest their limited resources in such manner as benefits both the resource and the citizens of this State. I am not the least bit interested in what "Center for Biological Diversity" or "Defenders of Wildlife" want - they're not paying taxes here in Washington State.

A red herring here on several accounts. First you are structuring your argument on the errant assumption that the reason for having wolves in the wild is tangible. Yet you would not make the same argument about hunting or fishing. The reason 2/3 of the people (voting citizens) favor wolf populations and Endangered Species Protection is intangible. It is based on a belief that we should take care of our environment to pass it on to future generations. We are the defacto stewards of the land. Defenders of Wildlife (as an example) is not a person - it can't "want". Rather, it represents the views of a large portion of society that believe as I do that we have the responsibility to take care of our environment. Your argument is a strawman necessitated by the rather goofy idea that everything we as people do has to be financially justifiable. The "Papers" were produced to justify that need from political necessity. But you certainly can't argue that people have a "purpose" on Earth or that we know why we are here. Everything humans do they don't do for a tangible reason.


Quote:
As for your statement about monies paid out to so-called "environmental groups" to reimburse them for legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act:
In a previous discussion thread of 11/10/09 regarding the Equal Access to Justice Act, it was pointed out that

"In total, $4,716,264,730.00 (that is billion with a b) in total payments were paid in taxpayer dollars from the Judgment Fund from 2003 through July 2007 for attorney fees and costs in cases against the federal government."

Again, disingenuous. Or not knowing. The "Idaho Farm Bureau" may have the correct total numbers. But this has nothing to do with reimbursements from judgements for wildlife or other quasi on the larger scale. I would bet a dollar to a donut that they lumped all judgements together. That would include judgements for superfund sites that endanger public health and it probably includes judgements for things like any government liability for Asbestos that kills people, clean up of solvents on military bases, contamination of workers at Hanford, or for other public health reasons. You would need to break down that seemingly large number statistically. I won't do it for you. Rather, as to wolves, I'll go with the financial statements of Earthjustice or Defenders or whatever. Those organizations represent the views of most all Americans. Look at individual litigations of Earthjustice or NRDC - they also defend the people's health in a vey big way.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9571 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((>
PostWed Aug 08, 2018 6:35 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb wrote:
"I just looked at Washington and every five years and there are not that many fewer licenses..."

Numbers are cited in the article I cited in my post above.
Bottom line: sales of both fishing and hunting licenses have decreased while the population has increased.
Sorry the facts aren't fitting your narrative.

gb wrote:
There are two completely different animals here.

NO, there are not "two different animals". A fishing license is a fishing license when you are counting number of licenses sold.
Again, sorry the facts aren't fitting your narrative.

Ski, for the third time addressing this question to you wrote:
In the case of the Gray Wolf, if you have empirical evidence that any of the benefits that are supposed to be realized as a result of wolf reintroduction (as cited in the papers of Beschta-Ripple from OSU) in Washington State, please feel free to cite them.

And you still can't answer the question, because the answer is NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

Please tell me again all the reasons why this grand experiment is such a wonderful idea, other than for the purpose of keeping those well-intentioned donations pouring into the coffers of "Center for Biological Diversity" and "Defenders of Wildlife" and all the other groups whose very existence depends upon their ability to fleece the public out of their money.

This is an excellent example of "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled."

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4953 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 08, 2018 7:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
gb wrote:
"I just looked at Washington and every five years and there are not that many fewer licenses..."

Numbers are cited in the article I cited in my post above.
Bottom line: sales of both fishing and hunting licenses have decreased while the population has increased.

Yes, well, hunting and fishing populations aren't growing. Economics is apparently one of the reasons (Roosevelt Conservation). Demographics change. I cited my observations in hiking which have also changed.

gb wrote:
There are two completely different animals here.

Quote:
NO, there are not "two different animals". A fishing license is a fishing license when you are counting number of licenses sold.

Well you didn't read what I posted. Fishing stocks in freshwater are dependent on restocking, take, and environmental health. Chances are that fisherman are still doing well on healthy lakes depending on the balance between restocking and take.

Saltwater fishing has little to do with that. It has more to do with commercial take for a growing population and Salmon stream habitat for breeding (i.e. dams as the easiest example).

Hence results for fisherman are different for the two environments as compared to historical take. Then, too, the economics of fishing in saltwater are clearly different than along streams or lakes (you may not need a boat and you certainly don't need a big, expensive one). The combination of these factors would probably dictate why fisherman licenses are not going up (if they are not). Look into it.

Ski, for the third time addressing this question to you wrote:
In the case of the Gray Wolf, if you have empirical evidence that any of the benefits that are supposed to be realized as a result of wolf reintroduction (as cited in the papers of Beschta-Ripple from OSU) in Washington State, please feel free to cite them.

And you still can't answer the question, because the answer is NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

Please tell me again all the reasons why this grand experiment is such a wonderful idea, other than for the purpose of keeping those well-intentioned donations pouring into the coffers of "Center for Biological Diversity" and "Defenders of Wildlife" and all the other groups whose very existence depends upon their ability to fleece the public out of their money.[/quote]

I'll just cut and paste my previous answer so you have a better chance of picking up on it:
Quote:
A red herring here on several accounts. First you are structuring your argument on the errant assumption that the reason for having wolves in the wild is tangible. Yet you would not make the same argument about hunting or fishing. The reason 2/3 of the people (voting citizens) favor wolf populations and Endangered Species Protection is intangible. It is based on a belief that we should take care of our environment to pass it on to future generations. We are the defacto stewards of the land. Defenders of Wildlife (as an example) is not a person - it can't "want". Rather, it represents the views of a large portion of society that believe as I do that we have the responsibility to take care of our environment. Your argument is a strawman necessitated by the rather goofy idea that everything we as people do has to be financially justifiable. The "Papers" were produced to justify that need from political necessity. But you certainly can't argue that people have a "purpose" on Earth or that we know why we are here. Everything humans do they don't do for a tangible reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 9571 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((>
PostWed Aug 08, 2018 7:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You can dance around "fresh water" and "salt water" until the cows come home, but it does not change the fact that the number of licenses sold has decreased.

As for your "strawman" and "red herring" nonsense:

The primary basis for the argument supporting wolf reintroduction (from the "science" side) is the "trophic cascade" theory put forth in the Beschta-Ripple papers.
The fact is that these two men claim that there is, in fact, a tangible benefit.
Thus far those results have not been seen here in Washington State.

The public opinion polls mean nothing. Public opinion is not science, it's just public opinion. Moreover, the claims made about "public opinion polls" regarding wolf reintroduction don't mention anything about methodology, the demographic polled, or exactly what questions were asked.

You can keep denying facts, but it doesn't change reality.
I find it rather amusing that you keep citing all kinds of "science" stuff in the global warming thread, but when it comes to wolves, it's all about opinion.

The word for your argument is "pap".

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 4953 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 08, 2018 9:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
You can dance around "fresh water" and "salt water" until the cows come home, but it does not change the fact that the number of licenses sold has decreased.

I just gave probable reasons for the decreases but that went over your head.

Quote:
The primary basis for the argument supporting wolf reintroduction (from the "science" side) is the "trophic cascade" theory put forth in the Beschta-Ripple papers.
The fact is that these two men claim that there is, in fact, a tangible benefit.
Thus far those results have not been seen here in Washington State.

The key words in your ramble are: "from the "science" side" and "thus far". But that has nothing to do with why wolves are valued by most Washingtonians despite red herring arguments to try to persuade people otherwise. Just let it be, some folks like the idea of wolves. People like the natural environment. Personally, I would place my limits at Dinosaurs. You don't like wolves but your passionate insistence affects me (and others) not at all.

Quote:
The public opinion polls mean nothing. Public opinion is not science, it's just public opinion. Moreover, the claims made about "public opinion polls" regarding wolf reintroduction don't mention anything about methodology, the demographic polled, or exactly what questions were asked.

Horsepucky. Polls are quite accurate particularly when the margin is a wide as this in reflecting Public opinion. Public opinion should be everything in a democracy.

Quote:
You can keep denying facts, but it doesn't change reality.

Which facts? The paper that you cite and that I read at least a couple of times in the past is not the reason I favor wolves. You should realize that your opinion is just an opinion and you keep trying to force it down the throats of those that disagree, like me.


Quote:
I find it rather amusing that you keep citing all kinds of "science" stuff in the global warming thread, but when it comes to wolves, it's all about opinion.

Remember your words "thus far". But even if the science proves out as it will in similar environments to Yellowstone I would hold the same opinion.

Global warming is for me science because I understand the ramifications and the meteorological theories and proofs behind it. But it is not "warm and fuzzy". I want wolves to be in the environment because I do. I also don't want to see us leave a world for future generations that is much degraded and miserable to live in. You should, too.

I find it amusing how you shifted the argument here to global warming and ignored my clear statement about humans not seeing things as tangible. Moving the goal posts is an obvious ploy when the argument itself is beyond reach.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
olderthanIusedtobe
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 5996 | TRs
Location: Shoreline
olderthanIusedtobe
  Top

Member
PostWed Aug 08, 2018 2:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
^ The salient and obvious point inexplicably being overlooked by several, apparently.

The point being missed by others is that it's an infinitesimally small odds of anyone being killed by a wolf on any continent.

Meanwhile, people die by the hundreds or thousands due to car accidents, alcohol and drug o.d., murder by other humans, etc. etc. etc.

Some people probably even slip in the shower and hit their head and die.  Or do something stupid like falling asleep while smoking in bed.

Dead is dead regardless of cause, and I still can't figure out why anyone is worrying about a wolf being that cause.  Especially 7 pages of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Wolves cause researcher to climb tree in Okanogan Co. - Heli sent in for rescue
  Happy Birthday IanB, SouthernYokel!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy