State wildlife officials had no idea what a hunt would mean for then delisted wolves

A couple of years ago, Steve Nadeau answered a question I had about the impact that a public hunt would have to wolf populations.  At that time, as the state was posturing for “competent manager” status, Nadeau spent much effort trying to reassure advocates that state managers had a good idea what effect a hunt would have:

Now, state managers are asking us to believe they need to learn more – apparently, the absence of knowledge is such that in response to the legal spanking state wildlife managers took last week on the wolf issue, state managers are looking to “research” what effect killing wolves will have to wolves.

Wildlife officials mull ‘research hunts’ for wolvesAP

Which is it ?

Did state managers know enough about the impact a hunt would have to remove federal protections via “delisting” ? … or do we now know so little that we need to remove  federal protections for “research” ?

25 Responses to “State wildlife officials had no idea what a hunt would mean for then delisted wolves”

  1. Nancy Says:

    Good video Brian (the rack on the wall, just behind his head, added an interesting take on the conversation)

    • jon Says:

      You would think a big carnivore specialist like Steve Nadeau would have some idea what he’s talking about. This guy and Jon Rachael switched jobs and now Jon Rachael is the wolf specialist.

    • Brian Ertz Says:

      thanks nancy, i was pretty stoked that i was to hold that angle with the camera

    • WM Says:

      So, Brian, really it is more about how you can slant a perspective, and show someone in a false light to make your points (puns all intended). LOL

      I thought you could have done a more objective job by trying to get some light on Nadeau’s face, and a little better audio above the din of others talking in the room (understandably, maybe not possible to go to another more quiet area at the time), so you could really hear what he was saying.

      have talked to the guy before and he is not as much of yutz as jon and Nancy make him out to be. And, if you listen very carefully to his words he says some things people here would agree with.

    • WM Says:

      jon,

      ++You would think a big carnivore specialist like Steve Nadeau would have some idea what he’s talking about++

      Hey jon,

      Enlighten us. What part(s) of the above video impromptu comments of Nadaeu do you disagree with? Please be specific, and tell us what wolf science you believe to be different than what he states.

  2. Virginia Says:

    His obvious lack of knowledge or how to even express himself in an intelligent way does him and his agency a huge disservice. He sounds like one of my students trying to explain to me why they were so late to class. Who said “it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought stupid than to open it and remove all doubt?”

  3. Daniel Berg Says:

    I can just picture one of the anti-wolf officials in Idaho watching an episode of Whale Wars with the proverbial light bulb lighting up on top of their head when the loudspeaker from the Japanese whale hunting ship blares out over the loudspeaker, “We are a research vessel”!

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      I don’t think too many anti-wolf people would be watching Whale Wars. It sends a bad message about hunting you know.

    • Save bears Says:

      Whale wars and hunting is two entirely different subjects with no correlation between the two of them..

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      Sb,
      As a matter of fact, there is a direct correlation. It’s subversion to acheive a goal. In Japan’s case, it is whale meat, in Idaho, it’s wolf control.

      Hunting barely deserves mentioning because at this point it’s not about the hunt for the Idaho officials, it’s about killing as many wolves as possible using whatever method they can get away with.

    • Save bears Says:

      Well Daniel working in this field I will respectfully disagree with your assessment..

  4. Daniel Berg Says:

    Sb,

    Why do you disagree?

    • Save bears Says:

      Because, neither one of these issues correlates to hunting, it is a circumventing of laws or rules to simply kill, Japan says it is research and this morning I have read that both Montana and Idaho are proposing permits for conservation removals…based on the current 10(j) rule. In both instances it is not hunters at the forefront, it is governments and government agencies that are pushing this…and of course I know there are many disgruntled hunters out there, but these are proposals by government agents…

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      Sb,
      I agree with your statement so apparently my feelings on the matter were lost in translation.

    • Save bears Says:

      Daniel,

      Before this is all said and done, I think you will find the hunters are the least of the worries.

  5. Daniel Berg Says:

    It’s commercial interests that I have always thought pose the greatest threat to the wilderness in general. What Field do you work in if you don’t mind me asking?

    • Save bears Says:

      My degree is in the study of predator/prey relationships, I worked for FWP for a while until such time as I would not doctor studies to fit a certain determined outcome, so right now, I am basically freelance and do studies for private organizations, mainly in the area of feasibility studies on wildlife re-introductions in different environments.

      My first career was in the Army Officer, I retired after 26 years of doing that in which I spent 13 years as an active duty officer, until I was shot in Iraq and spent the rest of that as a training officer.

      My passion is in the Elk and Bison arena…and I am trying to get on with the Washington State Dept of Game.

  6. Daniel Berg Says:

    Thank you for your service.

    I sometimes wish that I had chosen a career that revolved around our wilderness areas and wildlife. I live in Washington State and it seems like a guy could make a career out of just getting to know the land the state covers!

  7. Linda Hunter Says:

    Savebears it is my hope that you do get on with the Washington State Dept of Game. Maybe someday I will know your name. Until then good luck and keep up the good works.

    • Save bears Says:

      Linda,

      I really hope we get to meet on day, I really enjoy what you write, I am sure we would find some Very common ground to talk about.

  8. Rita K. Sharpe Says:

    Thank you for your service, Save bears.I,too, wish you good will and good luck on your endeavors.

    • Save bears Says:

      Thank you Rita…It is always interesting to see and hear what people think and how they act, but believe me, there are many of us moderates that really wish we could come to some sort of agreement and get back to wildlife and tell the political machine to go to hell!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: