Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Wolves in Washington

NFR 
15K views 172 replies 32 participants last post by  gone johnson 
#1 ·
Many of the enlightened minds on this forum seem to be interested in wolf issues whenever such a thread pops up, so I thought I would throw this out there for some light reading.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-rural-communities-can-coexist-with-wolves-heres-how/
The return of the wolf is just one of many budding wildlife success stories in the American West today. But without buy-in from the people who live with and around wolves, that success remains tenuous. Reasonable compromise on all sides will always be necessary. Around the world, working together and building understanding across stakeholder groups, indeed across cultures, has been shown to create more enduring conservation solutions than when people go off to their corners to fight through words, lawsuits and personal threats. For all the sound and fury everywhere else, Washington is where wolf recovery is being done right. It's a wildlife conservation model that others ought to follow.

As any biologist or agency staffer knows, fish and wildlife management today is, for better or worse, as much about working through the distinct values, needs and opinions of people as it is conserving our fish and wildlife and their habitat. Like with wild steelhead and salmon, that truth rings particularly loudly with wolves.

As someone working in the trenches on this issue for the last four years or so, and having the privilege to work with folks in Montana, Canada and other areas to evolve our policies based on experiences elsewhere, I'd say this is the clearest articulation yet of the complicated road Washington is following in hopes of forging a sustainable model for carnivore conservation, management, and eventually, coexistence in a state as socially divided as ours.

Full disclosure, I helped write it. But still worth a read if you're interested in the topic of how canis lupus intersects with **** sapiens.
 
See less See more
G
#5 · (Edited)
I just got back from a trip to Republic Washington, I can tell you this the locals are not wolf fans. They don't much like loseing their live stock to the wolves . I guess if I had live stock I would be more interested in the whole wolf debate.
 
#8 ·
I just got back from a trip to Republic Washington, I can tell you this the locals are not wolf fans. They don't much like loseing their live stock to the wolves . I quess if I had live stock I would be more interested in the whole wolf debate.
Yeah cause the people in Seattle want it and there's no consequence for them and the people in Republic have to live with it. Just the way it is. The Seattle team will now call republic team a bunch of stupid uneducated country bumpkins and the republic team will now call the Seattle team libtards and the like. Pretty predicable. My thoughts are leave it alone. We are already living in an altered ecosystem. The forest is now plantation. If the do gooders and Sierra clubbers want to do some good they should off themselves, bulldoze the city, and make that habitat and release wolves there. That won't happen though cause that's a consequence they would have to live with which goes beyond shopping at whole foods. I think it's cruel to introduce animals only to kill them off. Quit playing God. If wolves make a comeback on their own then great, maybe protect them a bit.
 
#7 · (Edited)
I have wolves now where I live. I have seen wolves out hunting and hiking throughout my life. I view them as any predator. I have good friends who run a moose outfitting business up in NW BC and they lost their hunting concession last year, after 30 years in business, because the growing wolf population up their greatly reduced the moose numbers so much that the govt shut down hunting for them in his region. My concern is keeping their population in check with their reproductions rates. Wolves reproduce at a much higher rate than bears and cats. Simple truth.

I grew up in WI and after the intro of wolves last two decades the population has exploded. I go home and bird hunt and have to keep my bird dog close as wolves have shadowed me and the dog while hunting. I stopped deer hunting because they have really put a hurt on the deer as their numbers have exploded. I know that in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming , where wolf, hunting has been allowed and encouraged , they have been unable to keep the wolf population to reasonable numbers because sport hunting has been proven to not be an effective means to control their populations and as a result some elk herds and moose have been decimated in those states.

Have talked to game bios in those states while over their hunting and was advised was the only way to control and effectively manage their populations was through sport hunting, trapping, ariel shooting and poisoning.

As wolf populations grow in Washington, Oregon, much more densely populated than Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, how do you think the WDFW ,ODFWwill manage their populations. Just look how they manage the fisheries here. The mule deer and moose populations are growing smaller and smaller every year here in Washington due to lack of habitat and wintering grounds. Do you think the wolves will help in their recovery?

Do you think Washington state urban dwellers will accept trapping and poisoning as a viable method to manage their growing populations in Washington? I personally dont think they would ever even allow sport hunting of cute wolves in our state to manage their growth.

Of course we know where this going
 
#11 · (Edited)
Ribka, both Wisconsin and the Northern Rockies states have ungulate populations (with the exception of mountain caribou in WA/ID of course, and some specific elk herds, like the Lolo, where habitat change is the primary factor) that are as a whole, over objective levels. Hunter success in both the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies remains high. And in the Great Lakes region where there are around a thousand wolves (a population that should absolutely be delisted), ticks and disease are causing more damage to moose than predation.

In Washington, we've seen no evidence to date of population affects on big game from our rapidly growing wolf population, again with the exception of mountain caribou in the Selkirks: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/big_game/wash_wolf-ungulate_2015.pdf (a WDFW/UW study is currently working to update this data. That report is admittedly from 2015).

You're correct that habitat loss and particularly limited public land winter range puts a serious strain on Northwest mule deer and elk populations. And moose numbers in northern and northeast Washington have fluctuated of late for a variety of reasons. But experiences from other states with even more predators show that wolves are likely to have limited additional affect on game populations in our region. Not that wolves don't eat plenty of ungulates, just like cougars, coyotes and black bears do, but that predation remains a minor limiting factor in overall population dynamics considering modern habitat conditions. And to be clear, predation is also not a factor without some benefits for overall herd and habitat health.
 
#25 ·
Ribka, both Wisconsin and the Northern Rockies states have ungulate populations (with the exception of mountain caribou in WA/ID of course, and some specific elk herds, like the Lolo, where habitat change is the primary factor) that are as a whole, over objective levels. Hunter success in both the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies remains high. And in the Great Lakes region where there are around a thousand wolves (a population that should absolutely be delisted), ticks and disease are causing more damage to moose than predation.

In Washington, we've seen no evidence to date of population affects on big game from our rapidly growing wolf population, again with the exception of mountain caribou in the Selkirks: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/big_game/wash_wolf-ungulate_2015.pdf (a WDFW/UW study is currently working to update this data. That report is admittedly from 2015).

You're correct that habitat loss and particularly limited public land winter range puts a serious strain on Northwest mule deer and elk populations. And moose numbers in northern and northeast Washington have fluctuated of late for a variety of reasons. But experiences from other states with even more predators show that wolves are likely to have limited additional affect on game populations in our region. Not that wolves don't eat plenty of ungulates, just like cougars, coyotes and black bears do, but that predation remains a minor limiting factor in overall population dynamics considering modern habitat conditions. And to be clear, predation is also not a factor without some benefits for overall herd and habitat health.

To your question about wolf population control, regulated wolf hunting will come to Washington once recovery objectives are achieved. Perhaps targeted in GMUs with depredating or specifically large packs. Hunting may be delayed by some hardline groups, but it will come. Trapping and poisoning, likely and hopefully not. Considering our human population and limited habitat compared to other states, I don't think there's much to fear as far the canis lupus population reaching untenable levels here.

Don't buy into the tin hatters. The truth with predators is far more complex than your post alleges. It's not that your concerns aren't valid, as a hunter myself I share many of them. It's that nowhere across wolves' range does the data hold them to be true.
There are actually about 3000 wolves in the state of Minnesota alone. There have been good numbers of wolves in Minnesota since I was a child (long time ago) and they haven't eaten all of the game yet. Deer are absolutely thick there. Moose struggling due to other factors. The statistics I have seen would show this to be more wolves than the total west of the Mississippi. Makes it hard for me to believe that the wolves in the west are decimating game populations.
 
#22 ·
Chase hit it on the dot from what I understand. I lived in eastern WA when the first wolf packs were found in the state, and I have lived in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in that time period as well.

I think I've seen stronger, more hostile reactions to this issue than anything else in those regions. Most of the locals in the more rural areas seem to be very strongly against reintroduction. Even a lot of my blue-voting friends in Idaho (yes, there are a few there) are pretty hostile towards wolves. I've heard people in bars bragging about killing wolves back when it was illegal, and I would bet that they weren't just making it up.

That side of the aisle does have its points--there was an infamous (in that area, at least) case in Wyoming where a rancher watched wolves kill one of his dogs but did not shoot them because they were endangered and it was illegal. I can't confirm that case but I heard it from multiple folks out there who I'd call trustworthy sources. Anyway, these folks are definitely the ones who are gonna deal with the effects of wolves, and they do pose a serious threat to livestock in some areas. So from the ranchers' perspectives, a bunch of people who live hundreds or thousands of miles away advocated for something on subjective grounds and they won't have to deal with any of the consequences--but ranchers will. I can see how it feels imposing and unfair, and no rancher should have to watch his dogs or livestock get torn to shreds without being able to do anything about it.

But...the reality is that the arguments (the ones I have heard, at least) against wolf reintroduction on an ecological or biological basis are all based on false premises. I've talked to dozens of people about this and I hear the same bullshit every time. "The wolves they reintroduced are a different species/breed/etc. from Canada so they're bigger and way more vicious" is the most common argument. And it's bullshit. They are quite literally the same species. It is true that mammals like wolves tend to be bigger the further north you go but the difference in the size between a wolf in British Columbia and the wolves that used to inhabit the Rocky Mountain region is small. The reason they're killing ungulates like crazy is (mostly) because ungulate populations in much of the west are above their carrying capacity, and ungulates have also adapted to living without many major predators other than humans. In Yellowstone, before wolf reintroduction, the elk population was more than twice what biologists estimated the carrying capacity to be.

If you want to make an argument against the reintroduction of wolves don't make it on the basis of what is ecologically sound. I've heard arguments against it on the basis of "it is not what is best for US (human beings who live in the region)" and that line of thought is more viable but even then I have yet to hear a really convincing argument that is both sound and logical. If the folks who hate wolves are really that concerned about elk populations then they should be far more concerned about other factors like habitat loss than wolves.

My personal feelings are mostly aligned with the left here. Humans do not need to have a complete monopoly on killing elk, and hunter success rates will be just fine. The friends I have out west that are skilled, dedicated hunters still do just fine. If some fat guy wants to complain about wolves because he can't kill an elk, I'd suggest he get off his ATV and hike a little bit. The elk are still there. And as for ranching, yes, it is a way of life, I know. But we don't need nearly the amount of it as we currently have in the US and ranching should not be the sole priority in determining land use. There are plenty of places where ranching really doesn't belong but some ranchers unfortunately continue to act as if it is their right to place cattle and sheep anywhere they please in the landscape, and cry "government tyranny!" whenever they're told otherwise.

But that all is my personal, subjective opinion. And I realize a lot of people disagree with me. So, I would think a compromise could be helpful. Crazy idea, I know. Personally I'm fine with the idea of hunting wolves in the event that their population gets too high. I'm sure it'll happen somewhere. In this day and age we can't expect ecosystems to just balance themselves easily and quickly--the western landscape has been and is being permanently changed by our presence. Any idea of a natural balance without any human intervention strikes me as idealistic and unrealistic. It's also unreasonable to ask ranchers to not do anything about it when wolves are tearing livestock apart. If wolves get too difficult to live with in areas with a lot of ranching, then maybe they'll just have to be confined to large wilderness areas like Yellowstone. I don't know if it's easy or viable to confine them to an area like that but it would give the most people most of what they want--ranchers in most of the west can live without having to worry about wolves, elk populations will exist without wolf predation in plenty of the west as well, and wildlife watchers who want to see wolves can still have a place to do so.

Dammit, I meant to keep this short and sweet.
 
#31 ·
I re read yours and Mitch Friedman's non scientific , non researched based very short article about wolves.

It seemed like it was written by a social justice warrior not a scientist or wild life biologist so did some research on the author. Platitudes like "co existence" Transformation" "compromise" were seen throughout the article

Chase Ballard your co author, Mitch Friedman, has an interesting background as a radical environmentalist not a wolf biologist. And I see he was a very active member of the eco terrorist group earth first!

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism

"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 share some of yours and Mr. Friedman's experience first hand studying wolves in Wisconsin Minnesota, Michigan ( some of biggest populations in the lower 48) and in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, British Columbia. I mean real first hand boots on the ground experience doing long term studies on wolf predation on deer and moose and live stock.

I spend the past 40 years hunting NW WI where i grew up and count DNR wildlife bio's as my friends. They tell me a different story than you and Mr. Friedman the former eco terrorist who grew up in Chicago.

I also know wild life Bio's in Livingston, Montana, Great Falls Montana and in north Idaho. I listen to their first hand experience dealing with wolves and it contradicts your and Mr. Friedman's. You can give another smug lecture but aint buying it

I am familiar with conservation NW and it has an anti-hunting, anti-sportsmen reputation

Among those testifying against it were people from Conservation Northwest.

"We're opposing the bills because there's still a great deal of uncertainty about the question of sport hunting," said Joe Scott of Conservation Northwest. This was conservation NW fighting against cougar hunting
 
#36 ·
This is disconcerting and if true confirms my worst fears and make me lean back on my original feelings of letting those that live there be in charge of whatever animal gets reintroduced and or managed. My skeptical position renewed. Thank you for that info. Somebody make the pros and cons list. That would at least be helpful in understanding what's at stake.
 
#34 ·
the wolf tracks surrounding half eaten carcasses were a big clue fyi

In 2008 i was spring bear hunting in the clear water nf of Idaho and ran accross over 40 carcasses of partially eaten mule and whitetail deer. I ran into a game bio, who actually lived and spent time with wolves, (unlike you) and he stated they were all wolf kills from winter and added that surplus kills by wolves were common.He was more concerned that resident moose were being wiped out by wolves not ticks as the op had blamed

you stated in your post "wolves just kill to eat" but maybe you just meant to type something different or maybe you dont know the first thing about wolves,

plus feedback from friends who work as wildlife biologists, ranchers, game wardens in Wyoming , Idaho , Montana, BC and Wisconsin have experienced the same surplus kills by wolves

maybe its time time get out of your urban apartment and see and experience wildlife first hand instead of staring at a computer screen
 
#35 ·
the wolf tracks surrounding half eaten carcasses were a big clue fyi

In 2008 i was spring bear hunting in the clear water nf of Idaho and ran accross over 40 carcasses of partially eaten mule and whitetail deer. I ran into a game bio, who actually lived and spent time with wolves, (unlike you) and he stated they were all wolf kills from winter and added that surplus kills by wolves were common.He was more concerned that resident moose were being wiped out by wolves not ticks as the op had blamed

you stated in your post "wolves just kill to eat" but maybe you just meant to type something different or maybe you dont know the first thing about wolves,

plus feedback from friends who work as wildlife biologists, ranchers, game wardens in Wyoming , Idaho , Montana, BC and Wisconsin have experienced the same surplus kills by wolves

maybe its time time get out of your urban apartment and see and experience wildlife first hand instead of staring at a computer screen
Judge much? You still misquoted me. I stated that domestic dogs that had formed packs had given me more fits than wolves that "largely" kill to eat. As I further stated, all predators will have blood lust. I don't disagree; but you know better because you know a few people - so do I; but I also lived it for years. I farmed and raised livestock, then I made my way into food manufacturing/processing and retail food sales, then to consulting.

You have an axe to grind and you call names and make unfounded statements and smear anyone who disagrees with your opinion. Ever own a large tract of land in the boonies, I doubt it. I have and I'm more than ten years your senior and you haven't nearly covered as much territory as I have hunting, fishing and farming. You have what expertise? Your complete ignorance as to who I am is just laughable.

As to my opinions on wolf management: Do I believe wolves have a place in the North American ecosystem? Yes. Do I believe in hunting them if their numbers become excessive? Of course. But should we wipe them all out because they kill or a farmer is inconvenienced ? No.

Wolves are part of the ecosystem. Ranching and farming in wolf territory - which I have done in two states - is risk prone. I owned my land. I didn't lease or rent it. It takes work to make it pay. It took all of me and I worked a town job full time for the first few years as well. Was it hard? Jesus yes. But wolves were the least of the challenges.

You jump on me with misquotes and slander to make yourself look what - bigger or better or smarter? Whaaat? I've never lived in an apartment. What was the point in all that bullish!t?

I now live on the Quimper Peninsula, Somewhere between suburban and rural; but I now make my living doing IT consulting and crunching data in my own business. I'm building a home closer to Sequim so I can again have animals and more than a 1/2 acre of garden. This has been my life. I didn't catch your expertise? I hold degrees in economics, business, IT and medicine. I also have over 2000 hours of CEUs. What is your background?

Your anecdotal stories and hit pieces on people on this forum do nothing to find the balance with regard to the subject matter of wolf populations and a way forward. You offer no real DATA and God forbid, a solution; but instead an angry, insulting one sided anecdotal griping by "some people". Real named biologists disagree with you based on DATA. They are numerous and well thought of enough to be in positions that make decisions. All of them worked or work in the field; not just the 10 you know.

If there is a problem in a particular area with wolf predation and excessive numbers, then lobby to change that particular problem; but a blanket hate for wolves and attacking anyone with a different experience does little to further a responsible conversation, let alone a workable solution.

To make it as a farmer/rancher, it takes cooperation with all of your neighbors, not just the ones that you agree with. I wish you well going forward.
 
#39 ·
Regarding the re-introduction of wolves in WA state, NOBODY is re-introducing them to WA. Other than wolves themselves, from neighboring Idaho and British Columbia. Not one single wolf has moved into WA state via a government sponsored black helicopter.

Doesn't matter whether you're a wolf hater or a wolf lover, wolves have returned to WA. I'm still favorably impressed that WDFW actually got ahead of the curve on this wildlife issue and has a wolf management plan that was prepared before wolves became numerous in this state. And that plan was prepared with the input from both people who hate and love wolves coming back to WA.
 
#42 ·
Well thank you salmo for a voice of reason and facts. That's a horse of a different colour. In that case if they are returning on their own I'd support measures to protect them while also supporting ranchers and other residents in their interest to keep harm at bay ON THEIR LAND, and not public land. Seems much to do about not much considering these facts. I'm definitely disappointed that there will be no sequel to the excellent cinema that was, The Breed. But hey that's fine. I think we all can make some room and adjustment for the wild while allowing people to defend their property and interests.
 
#65 ·
Hunters spent 821 million dollars in license sales annually

800 million in duck hunting stamps

Pitman Roberts has generated 18 billion dollars for wildlife.

No hunting= no money for wildlife.
More successful hunts = more hunters= more money for wildlife.
Exceptionally simple equasion.

Now i am all for wolves in moderation.

As for natural ecosystems.. we don't have any and we need to manage for what we have not what we wish we had
 
#66 ·
Alright, once again you got under my skin. Caught in the classic R. A. vortex.

I resorted to calling you a 2 year old and a blowhard. You're not a 2 year old....;).

I have no argument, nor am I looking to make one related to hunters putting a lot of $'s into wildlife conservation. I know all the arguments, the North American model of wildlife management etc. My tax dollars, my contributions to organizations that support and do not support hunting, my fishing license purchases (4 states in my wallet as I type this), my purchase of things like entrance fees to National parks, county parks, camping permits, etc. means I pay my fair share. Not to mention the money I pour into the local economies where wildlife is abundant. Most people in this country do not hunt (by population) and they pay a lot of taxes. Because you contribute more than the average individual (but less than the whole) does not give you more of a say in how wildlife is managed on public lands. I appreciate what hunters add to the coffers and have no concerns with people hunting (I eat meat). Their opinions should not carry more weight though. If you add up the $'s spent by non-hunters on the things referenced that support wildlife conservation and habitat, I assume (not going to research so don't know for sure), it trumps the $'s given through hunting licenses and pro-hunting organizations.

I do not think wolf management should be predicated on hunter succes rates for big game though and in fact, don't think it should play any part at all in the equation.

I casted for salmon for 9 hours+ this weekend with minimal success from a # of fish caught perspective.

The last thing you will hear me screaming about is sea lion removal although many do.
 
#67 ·
Great point jiz and there are far fewer people who fly fish than hunt
Well at least hunters eat what they kill and enjoy providing their families with organic healthy meat. Fly fisherman swinging flies just torture their quarry and toss them back and many fish just die a useless death

Anyway
Pluck the hunting community and its rich culture in America, Phuck em all

I would like to see a conservation organization like conservation nw start introducing apex predators sealions , squaw fish , river otters and cormorants planting operations in all are lakes and rivers and ocean areas to get the ecosystem back like it was 200 years ago before the evil white man came and destroyed the delicate balance by commercial and recreational fly fishing. Fly fishermen don't do a damn thing to help me out or benefit the delicate fisheries in Washington and hey if fishing is shut down ( like hunting) on all waters so these magnificent predators can regain there former numbers of 200 years ago that would be a wonderful thing. Plus it would cut down on the terrible carbon footprint of the fly fishing community. Slobs. Sounds like a win win for Mother Nature. If fishing guides and fly shops are shut it is for the common good. A very small percentage of Americans fly fish and even more horrifying is that almost all fly fishermen are CIS white males. They don't a damn thing for me anyway and the benefit to our Mother Earth would be irrefutable
 
#73 ·
Reading all the above posts hurt my head.

Jeezuz.

Without hunters the numbers of winterkill would be off the charts. Without hunters some species would be endangered. Without hunters a lot of areas would be closed to access. Without hunters habitat for animals would end up in the hands of developers.

Without hunters, the anti-hunters would have to find some other namby pamby bullshit to whine about.

Head Hat Cap Font Happy
 
#78 ·
Reading all the above posts hurt my head.

Jeezuz.

Without hunters the numbers of winterkill would be off the charts. Without hunters some species would be endangered. Without hunters a lot of areas would be closed to access. Without hunters habitat for animals would end up in the hands of developers.

Without hunters, the anti-hunters would have to find some other namby pamby bullshit to whine about.

View attachment 151052
Simply not the case in today's world. Although hunters absolutely play a large part in the process, non hunters who recreate in the outdoors and use wildlife as a resource in other ways are just as important today.

All of the taxes that that non hunters pay hunters pay as well. As a whole non outdoor people outnumber outdoor people. There are hubdreds of ways that everyone pays for the recreation of some. So the idea that general tax payers pay some level of wildlife is irrelevant.

I have no boat nor interest in traveling on the ocean , i still pay for the coastguard... we all pay for things we will never use. We all owe eachother thanks for paying for eachothers stuff.

I would not support any more taxes fees or laws of any kind you should be able ti go photograph with what you already pay or less.

Actually wildlife managment is supposed to fall to the states not the federal government. So decisions about that managment should represent the will of the people of that state as provided by the state constitution. The feds should only be involved in cases of ESA.
See, we're finding common ground but maybe that's the difference in our ideology; I want the opportunity to have a say in how my tax dollars are put to use. As a non hunter who views wildlife and wild places as a resource I use extensively, I want a say in how they are managed. Hunters should absolutely have that say as well. People who sit on their thumbs all day watching Dancing with Stars should have a say as well. It's there money being put to work.

So Rob, if I were to boil down yet another of our epically worthless back and forths I think it comes to this.

  • We all pay taxes, hunters and non hunters
  • Both hunters and non-hunters use wild places and wild resources..you with a rifle, I with a camera.
  • You believe hunters should be the only people with input on wildlife management since they pay license fees and non hunters don't. You don't believe people using wild resources in manners other than hunting should have to pay for a license to use them...even if that is the only difference in us being able to get an equal voice in the dialogue.
  • I believe non hunters subsidize your sport significantly and should have a say in how the resource is managed.
We BOTH agree non hunters and hunters should be able to use the resource (yeah - agreement!).

Ok, we are boring the shit out of people. Per the usual, you and I have beaten the moose to death.

Lets' move onto a less controversial topic; to kneel or stand, that is the question....

Joking, joking, joking!

Back to wolves....or even better yet, back tonfishing related topics for me!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top