Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Wolves on the Westside?

34K views 351 replies 73 participants last post by  Gary Thompson 
#1 ·
Yesterday, I went fishing up the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie with my family. I was up river about 300 yards from where my family was hanging out playing on the shore of the river. I was working my way back downstream when my wife starts yelling and making gestures that there was an animal off in the bushes. I was thinking a black bear but when I got within hearing range she says "it was a really big grey dog with a thick coat and very bushy tail". By her account ( I never saw it), the animal was on the edge of the high water mark about 50 yards away between her and the road. When she saw the animal moving at a fast pace up river she called the kids in behind her, it stopped and stared at her for a few seconds, and then continued up river through the washout. The animal never threatened her or the kids. My pistol was sitting on a towel about 5 feet away from her but she was so freaked I bet if it had threatened her she would have probably thrown rocks and forgotten about the gun.

She has seen plenty of coyotes from a far and as close as ten yards and she is convinced this was not a coyote. Later that night she looked at a lot of the WDFW wolf game camera images and she is convinced it was a wolf.

As a crow flies the western edge of the Teanaway Wolf pack is no more than 50 miles from wher we were and with the Taylor Bridge fire pushing a lot of animals around I wonder if there are wolves pushing west. We know it's only a matter of time before they make it over the Cascades to find the deer and elk populations (hello North Bend) to their liking but I always guessed it would be another year before we heard anecdotal reports and 2 years before the WDFW would acknowledge a western wolf presence. After yesterday I am pretty sure they are already here. I'm going to call the WDFW tomorrow to talk to them about it.

So what do you think?
 
See less See more
G
#95 ·
This is my point - ranchers are paying far below market-value for the use of public lands, and then asking for reimbursement when one of their animals falls to an apex predator, on public lands? This is either corruption or hypocrisy at it's finest.
This is a interesting debate, Ranchers getting a deal on public range land. It's like tring to estimate how much money the taxpayers put into fisheries so people can make a living as a fishing guide off a public resource. wheres the hypocrisy ???
 
#94 ·
Read all you want with an eye on skepticism towards the source, if the studies/management guidelines you've read doesn't add up to the experience afield then you become jaded like me. Common sense goes a long way in what a wolf is created to do.

The issue is management, the controversy is about numbers and how can one develop a plan without fully realizing the situation of a highly mobile, very reproductive species that has an impact like no other preadator. I'd be more comfortable with wolves if this had been a natural migration, (and it's been documented in GNP in the 70's, the Bob in the 80's, Ninemile pack in the 90's, this sounds like a natural balance to me...see I read too) but someone more scholarly than me decided we needed more wolves to restore the natural balance and hide it under the ESA.

In our current state (MT) of affairs, we hunters would like to thank Idaho for giving us the idea to dispatch up to 3 wolves per person this season. I have nothing against the wolf, I think every dyed in the wool, blue blooded Montanan should own a pelt or two. When balance is restored then I might be crying for a wolf howl in my old age.

Time to harvest the corn!
 
#96 ·
Didn't take you very long to go there, did it? I pay what the State requires me to, in fact my commercial guide license increased last year by 50%, with no changes in enforcement, land acquisition, restoration, or otherwise. And I'll gladly pay more AS I act as a steward for the land, the fish, and everyone's ability to enjoy the fisheries. There's no hypocrisy here. Get back on topic.
 
#112 ·
Here's another way to look at it - imagine an angler sending a bill to WDFW for each fish taken from the river by the eagles, osprey, otters, etc. It's ridiculous.
Damn you Derek Young for bringing the otters into this. I filed my federal claim for the four fish take from my line by those damn otters. I filed the state forms first. The Washington forms were so darn complicated that they kicked each of the two of them back for corrections. I had to hire a legal firm to make sense of it all. Idaho told me I was lucky that a moose did not kick my ass for fishing its stretch of the St. Joe and I should have been satisfied to feel the fish for a few seconds before the otter struck. Montana told me that my GPS coordinates were in Wyoming. Wyoming told me that Montana always says that to discourage the applicant from getting anywhere. I tossed up my hands and filed the federal forms for all four claims. Strangely, I have not heard from the feds at all. I have notices strange humming noises in both my cell and office phones and each of my internet capable devices have shown a recent tendency to lock up for no reason. I think the feds are out to get me like the otters. I like the otters more.
 
#100 ·
Skeered of the big bad woof? Nah. Haven't spent a lot of time with them in the woods. Had one feeding on a moose head a hunter left on the river bank, less than 20 yards from the steelhead run I was fishing. Saw several others as parts of a packs throughout various other trips to the hinterlands of BC. Many times well within 50 yards.

Grizz bars? Now those make me nervous in the woods. One must take special precaution to stay outside in grizz bar country. Let alone black bar country. One does not fish 20 yards from a grizz bar without a care in the world.

Bullwinkle? Um. Considering I have seen about the same number of grizz bars and woofs as moose in the woods. I don't like bullwinkle or his girlfriend. Especially his girlfriend with youngins. The only trouble I have ever had in the woods (aside from blood sucking insects driving one to the brink of insanity) with critters has been bullwinkle.

Well there are skunks. I am a shitpile more skeered of a skunk then a woof or bar or moose.

And rattler snakes. Not skeered of snakes. Just PAY ATTENTION. My son is skeered to death of them. When he gets buzzed he does this funny levitation uncontrollable groaning thing. I kinda like them because they are spooky.

Other humans? Yep. In general the worst trouble one will ever encounter be fellow sapiens sapiens. Especially the ones that live in rural areas with woofs. Not a one of them isn't packing a concealed handgun. And there are the ones that smash and grab what they wish from a vehicle left on quiet backwoods roads.

I do like to hunt big game. Especially the food source that causes all of the hate towards woofs. 'Save a hundred elk, shoot a wolf' bumper stickers. And so on. I guess I don't mind woofs in the wild even though they do impact the herds. I relish the challenge.

As a fisherman first I do like the fact that yellerstone cutts have appreciated the return of the beaver in a select few drainages. Once the ungulates with big beautiful racks (and tasty meat) stopped stomping and eating all the willows the soft pelted PITA mammal showed back up. They did what they do and dammed the cricks. Them yellerstone cutts liked it and numbers of fish grew. Kinda how it is supposed to work.

Long live the managed woof pack in the wilds...
 
#101 ·
My wife and some friends saw one come up behind me up at Crystal Mtn.
We went to their big new years party, and I brought my snow disc. Bout 11:30 or so, I hiked up I think it is called Chair 9 run till I ran out of breath, gave a 'hey watch my dumb drunk @ss!!!' and sled down the hill.
When I got to the bottom they were all frantic.... You didnt hear us yelling at you?!?!?! A big black dog came out of the brush behind you and was creeping up on you!!!!
They said it was way bigger than a pet or coyote. Didnt bug me, I just wanted another beer....

The way I look at it, no wild animals pay attention to fences... They will run where ever their hearts desire or where the food is.
 
#106 ·
Hard to believe there are any wolves left with all the "Lethal Removals". How about some Lethal Removals of . . . . Naaaaa, better not.
 
#124 ·
Looks like the wedge pack is in trouble, better pull out that 301 page document called the wolf management plan to figure out what to do, have 10 meeting of the experts, 20 community forums before getting the federal sharpshooters in with the helicopters.

I sense the troubles are just beginning for your state... I feel your pain WA elk hunters.
 
#128 ·
5shot,

You write as though wolves have been deliberately re-introduced in WA, ". . . on the Wolf re-introduction . . ." and ". . . people who are for the introduction. . .", but as far as I know, wolves have simply migrated naturally into WA from Idaho and BC. WDFW anticipated this happening, and for once proactively developed a wolf management plan in advance to deal with the issue.

If you can, would you please post the source for WDFW spending $2.4 MM on wolf studies over the next 6 years? Also, I'm doubtful about that money coming from license and access fees. The reason is because I've heard that the NON-GAME program at WDFW is the best and most reliablly funded at WDFW because the money comes from vehicle vanity license plates and is independent of hunting and fishing license fees. If that's changed I'd like to know the source of the information.

I do agree with you that where there are wolf and human conflicts, the wolves will lose. That's pretty much spelled out in the management plan.

Sg
 
#171 ·
5shot,

You write as though wolves have been deliberately re-introduced in WA, ". . . on the Wolf re-introduction . . ." and ". . . people who are for the introduction. . .", but as far as I know, wolves have simply migrated naturally into WA from Idaho and BC. WDFW anticipated this happening, and for once proactively developed a wolf management plan in advance to deal with the issue.

If you can, would you please post the source for WDFW spending $2.4 MM on wolf studies over the next 6 years? Also, I'm doubtful about that money coming from license and access fees. The reason is because I've heard that the NON-GAME program at WDFW is the best and most reliablly funded at WDFW because the money comes from vehicle vanity license plates and is independent of hunting and fishing license fees. If that's changed I'd like to know the source of the information.

I do agree with you that where there are wolf and human conflicts, the wolves will lose. That's pretty much spelled out in the management plan.

Sg
Wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have been reintroduced...so any wolf coming into WA from ID is reintroduced - doesn't matter if WDFW put them here or not.

As for the 2.4M (it is really 2.28M, but I rounded for convenience) - that figure is from WDFW - http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#15

And if you think they won't pull funds from your licensing fees to fill holes in their budget for non-game species, I think you are wrong. Nothing is safe. The state pulled money out of accounts ear marked for schools...do you really think the WDFW won't shuffle money around?
 
#248 ·
You're not thinking this through: No, you can't swap wolves for salmon (while wolf fur would look great on a parka, I don't think I'd eat one under most circumstances). First, Salmon haven't been completely absent from the rivers and streams here-everybody knows that! It's not that the species is gone, but that their numbers are diminished. So it's not anything like a reintroduction. This should be self evident. Second, as you know, salmon usually don't go round killing anything that moves, where packs of wolves in Montana and Idaho have been documented to go through a sheep herd like a hot knife through butter. Third, since salmon haven't been absent from the ecosystem at all, everybody in their habitat knows what it takes to deal with them

No ecosystem is "enhanced" or "diminished" by the addition or subtraction of anything: the ecosystem simply IS. What's going on is a value judgement placed upon the system by-in this case-a small but very noisy bunch of "activists", who've managed to use the ESA to further their demands. Everywhere man tries to "enhance" the ecosystem, he screws it up

You know as well as I do, that the BPA spends so much money on salmon mitigation because it was required to by some idiot in a black robe, who was NEVER satisfied with anything that all the agencies involved, in coordination with the tribes involved, came up with to satisfy his demands! This man was completely unreasonable, and good riddance that he's retired. Reasonable solutions for supporting salmon were presented to him every time this came to court, but he trashed each and every one of them.

It's a very important point that everyone understand the wolf is now NOT NATIVE to the ecosystem, nor has it been for a century.
Alright, Alex... you have more energy for this than I do (I'm really tired right now) but here's my 2 cents:

1. "First, Salmon haven't been completely absent from the rivers and streams here-everybody knows that!" - AM
Salmon have been extirpated from a huge amout of their former range. Grand Coulee Dam alone destroyed thousands of square miles of salmon habitat. gone- poof. Hells canyon comlex on the snake- gone- salmon gone! In the Columbia Basin there are only 1.5- 5% native runs occupying their former turf. my beloved Spokane river has not seen a salmon since the 1930's. BUT... how about the Elwha as an example? Those fish had been cuttoff from their former range. By your logic, any salmon that re-colonizes is an "invasive species". I believe this is bogus as "native" species readily re-colonize lost habitat.
2."Second, as you know, salmon usually don't go round killing anything that moves, where packs of wolves in Montana and Idaho have been documented to go through a sheep herd like a hot knife through butter" - AM
Wolves do not "kill anything that moves". Thats just hyperbole. They don't. Really. Otherwise Lewis and Clark would have found a barren wasteland devoid of any life save for ravenous wolves keying in on any movement and pouncing. They eat a few deer and elk... and an occasional sheep... big deal. Our cars kill more ungulates on the winter highways than do wolves.
3. "Third, since salmon haven't been absent from the ecosystem at all, everybody in their habitat knows what it takes to deal with them" - AM
I'm not sure what this means but if you are saying there is consensus on how to recover wild salmon runs you, my friend have been sleeping since 1975. Think hullabaloo over dams, hatcheries, netting Blah Blah on and on and on ad nauseum... NO CONSENSUS and bitter, historic disagreements on how to manage salmonid habitats!
4."No ecosystem is "enhanced" or "diminished" by the addition or subtraction of anything: the ecosystem simply IS." - AM
Again, I have to call BS... thats like saying no body is "healthy" or "Sick"... they just are. Sorry, lots of sick people and sick eco-systems around these days. The key word is system. it is and eco-SYSTEM... it is beyond just being, it functions as a system that creates homeostasis and balance (for periods of time). (Definition: A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network). Thus it is reasonable for scientists to say with certainty that preditors are a functional part of an ecosystem... Hence - Wolves have value in keeping the system or network, functional. Wolves have been a part of PNW ecosystems for many thousands of years. Absent for less than a century... They belong - they have value and they function in a systemic way for the better of the greater system.
5. "You know as well as I do, that the BPA spends so much money on salmon mitigation because it was required to by some idiot in a black robe" - AM
Actually Redden was simply enforcing a law called the Northwest Power Act (1980), which sought to balance the development of hydro power with the value of salmon and steelhead. It was an attempt to reflect the values of a society which valued a rich and long heritage of fishing for and existing with salmon and steelhead. And the imposed spring spill Redden imposed (that is still giving us descent outmigration of steel) is very reasonable.
http://www.snakeriversalmonsolutions.org/Hardball_Politics.aspx

Last point, while you cannot eat a wolf - and you can eat a salmon... both have values to the greater ecosystems in which they belong FAR BEYOND their value as simple food or fur. (maybe this is a key part of where you and I disagree). Both are essential even if they have had to swim and claw their way back into their rightful habitats and ecoSYSTEMS.

Tallfly guy: As for the wolves requiring an "emergency" in ID... that is simply a farcical political move to garner support for their Gangsta take on wildlife... which is - Wolves are competing for a Cash Crop (out of state elk license $$) - wolves gotta hit the road or suffer - functional ecosystem be dammed.

That's my (tired) take...

JW
 
#257 ·
Wolves don 't indiscriminately kill animals and leave them

A friend who is rancher just found 3 dead calves . None were eaten wolf tracks hair nearby.

Thanks for the chuckle. Entertaining post

http://missoulian.com/article_5ff01772-938f-11de-9aca-001cc4c03286.html

Alright, Alex... you have more energy for this than I do (I'm really tired right now) but here's my 2 cents:

1. "First, Salmon haven't been completely absent from the rivers and streams here-everybody knows that!" - AM
Salmon have been extirpated from a huge amout of their former range. Grand Coulee Dam alone destroyed thousands of square miles of salmon habitat. gone- poof. Hells canyon comlex on the snake- gone- salmon gone! In the Columbia Basin there are only 1.5- 5% native runs occupying their former turf. my beloved Spokane river has not seen a salmon since the 1930's. BUT... how about the Elwha as an example? Those fish had been cuttoff from their former range. By your logic, any salmon that re-colonizes is an "invasive species". I believe this is bogus as "native" species readily re-colonize lost habitat.
2."Second, as you know, salmon usually don't go round killing anything that moves, where packs of wolves in Montana and Idaho have been documented to go through a sheep herd like a hot knife through butter" - AM
Wolves do not "kill anything that moves". Thats just hyperbole. They don't. Really. Otherwise Lewis and Clark would have found a barren wasteland devoid of any life save for ravenous wolves keying in on any movement and pouncing. They eat a few deer and elk... and an occasional sheep... big deal. Our cars kill more ungulates on the winter highways than do wolves.
3. "Third, since salmon haven't been absent from the ecosystem at all, everybody in their habitat knows what it takes to deal with them" - AM
I'm not sure what this means but if you are saying there is consensus on how to recover wild salmon runs you, my friend have been sleeping since 1975. Think hullabaloo over dams, hatcheries, netting Blah Blah on and on and on ad nauseum... NO CONSENSUS and bitter, historic disagreements on how to manage salmonid habitats!
4."No ecosystem is "enhanced" or "diminished" by the addition or subtraction of anything: the ecosystem simply IS." - AM
Again, I have to call BS... thats like saying no body is "healthy" or "Sick"... they just are. Sorry, lots of sick people and sick eco-systems around these days. The key word is system. it is and eco-SYSTEM... it is beyond just being, it functions as a system that creates homeostasis and balance (for periods of time). (Definition: A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network). Thus it is reasonable for scientists to say with certainty that preditors are a functional part of an ecosystem... Hence - Wolves have value in keeping the system or network, functional. Wolves have been a part of PNW ecosystems for many thousands of years. Absent for less than a century... They belong - they have value and they function in a systemic way for the better of the greater system.
5. "You know as well as I do, that the BPA spends so much money on salmon mitigation because it was required to by some idiot in a black robe" - AM
Actually Redden was simply enforcing a law called the Northwest Power Act (1980), which sought to balance the development of hydro power with the value of salmon and steelhead. It was an attempt to reflect the values of a society which valued a rich and long heritage of fishing for and existing with salmon and steelhead. And the imposed spring spill Redden imposed (that is still giving us descent outmigration of steel) is very reasonable.
http://www.snakeriversalmonsolutions.org/Hardball_Politics.aspx

Last point, while you cannot eat a wolf - and you can eat a salmon... both have values to the greater ecosystems in which they belong FAR BEYOND their value as simple food or fur. (maybe this is a key part of where you and I disagree). Both are essential even if they have had to swim and claw their way back into their rightful habitats and ecoSYSTEMS.

Tallfly guy: As for the wolves requiring an "emergency" in ID... that is simply a farcical political move to garner support for their Gangsta take on wildlife... which is - Wolves are competing for a Cash Crop (out of state elk license $$) - wolves gotta hit the road or suffer - functional ecosystem be dammed.

That's my (tired) take...

JW
 
#137 ·
On second thought, maybe this can be a "teachable moment" for Mr. Buchanan, so I'll take a shot at it:

Dear Mr. Buchanan; you clearly have no factual knowledge of good hunters and hunting in general, so I challenge you to learn. I'm offering to take you with me on a scouting trip and a hunt, and will teach you about hunting, hunting ethics, and yes, why wolf introduction isn't a good idea. You'll need a good pair of boots, a blaze orange vest and hat, a day pack with water, snacks, a good knife, firestarting material, clothing to protect you from inclement weather, first aid, a compass and some toilet paper. A camera wouldn't hurt, either. Pre-season scouting doesn't require hunter orange, but going on a hunt in season will.

We'll be on the top of Blewett pass, in an area near Table Mountain. I'll show you how to track and read sign, how to use your long-forgotten nose to scent things, and what it means to be a participant in the forest, not merely a tourist. You can pm me and I'll meet you on highway 97, at the top of the pass.

So there you are. You can sit and mouth off about something you clearly have no knowledge of, or you can begin learning what real hunters actually do. It's your call: fish or cut bait.
 
#139 ·
On second thought, maybe this can be a "teachable moment" for Mr. Buchanan, so I'll take a shot at it:

Dear Mr. Buchanan; you clearly have no factual knowledge of good hunters and hunting in general, so I challenge you to learn. I'm offering to take you with me on a scouting trip and a hunt, and will teach you about hunting, hunting ethics, and yes, why wolf introduction isn't a good idea. You'll need a good pair of boots, a blaze orange vest and hat, a day pack with water, snacks, a good knife, firestarting material, clothing to protect you from inclement weather, first aid, a compass and some toilet paper. A camera wouldn't hurt, either. Pre-season scouting doesn't require hunter orange, but going on a hunt in season will.

We'll be on the top of Blewett pass, in an area near Table Mountain. I'll show you how to track and read sign, how to use your long-forgotten nose to scent things, and what it means to be a participant in the forest, not merely a tourist. You can pm me and I'll meet you on highway 97, at the top of the pass.

So there you are. You can sit and mouth off about something you clearly have no knowledge of, or you can begin learning what real hunters actually do. It's your call: fish or cut bait.
I'll take you up on your offer. Learning to hunt is one thing. Learning to hunt from a SEAL is pretty baddass. BTW thank you for your service. I mean that from the heart.
 
#138 ·
Can't say it any better than this.... from the Pres. of RMEF.

"one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century."

Allen said, "These animal rights groups seem to think that every individual wolf is worth filing another lawsuit to protect, but the decimation of local elk herds is unimportant. What is truly ironic is these folks claim protection of the Canadian gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. However these wolves are not endangered. There are thousands of them throughout North America. The ESA is being manipulated far beyond its intended purpose."
 
#140 ·
Finally a thread going to crap takes a positive turn? Let's keep it positive or keep it to ourselves. Alex, I might like to meet up too. Just cause you are a cool cat.
 
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