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
#217 ·
"Exhibits low level of fear of humans. Non-secretive behavior. Minimal avoidance of humans, vehicles, domestic animals. Will cross large open terrain at will even when other options for cover are available."

this, and many of the other behavioral differences listed, seem like they would surely be adapted when this wolf finds itself in a smaller space with 10X the number of human beings present. are you suggesting this is how they are behaving in washington, just running around in the open, exactly like they would in northern alberta where there's like 400 people living, just because that's their genetic disposition?

and what wolf, or any predator, wouldn't prefer a defenseless beef calf to chasing down a wild deer?
 
#218 ·
"Exhibits low level of fear of humans. Non-secretive behavior. Minimal avoidance of humans, vehicles, domestic animals. Will cross large open terrain at will even when other options for cover are available."

this, and many of the other behavioral differences listed, seem like they would surely be adapted when this wolf finds itself in a smaller space with 10X the number of human beings present. are you suggesting this is how they are behaving in washington, just running around in the open, exactly like they would in northern alberta where there's like 400 people living, just because that's their genetic disposition?

and what wolf, or any predator, wouldn't prefer a defenseless beef calf to chasing down a wild deer?
I'm not saying anything, a field biologist said it. Did you read the post or just pick one item in the list to debate? DNA tests as well as many biologists and evidence support the fact that these wolves are non-native. Seeing wolves out on the flats around leadore Idaho as well as many other hunters who run into these wolves while hunting support this point. Just watch a few videos about how fearless these wolves are around elk hunters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ribka
#229 ·
TFG,

Canis = genus
Canis lupus = species of Canis
Canis lupus occidentalis = subspecies of Canis lupus

I'm not saying there aren't differences among subspecies (I'm not a mammalogist), but professional mammalogists disagree about where to draw lines defining subspecies.

DNA data can identify evolutionary lineages. These are extremely valuable in understanding the population history within a species as well as distinguishing among species. You don't seem to understand how these data are being used in the information you cite.

... and as far as I'm aware, no one has ever suggested that black bears and grizzly bears were the same species. Brown bear, grizzly bear, Kodiak, are all one species, Ursos arctos. Again, many subspecies have been described and, again, mammalogists disagree over where to assign boundaries for subspecies.

D
 
#231 ·
So we can agree that the canadian grey wolf, brought to Idaho, is a different subspecies, larger etc, non native to Idaho that was introduced? I am saying it was, and am showing you evidence that it was infact non native. IF you have anything that can refute that other than semantics, please share.
 
#233 ·
So we can agree that the canadian grey wolf, brought to Idaho, is a different subspecies, larger etc, non native to Idaho that was introduced? I am saying it was, and am showing you evidence that it was infact non native. IF you have anything that can refute that other than semantics, please share.
I'll reply in three points.

1) As I've said above, professional mammalogists don't agree on how to circumscribe wolf subspecies. What difference does it make if a bunch of us yahoos on a fly-fishing board agree?

2) Professional taxonomists (and I know a few...) would always caution not to make too much of the distinctions that are used to define subspecies (or varieties, or races, or any other infra-specific category). If there were strong, solid biological differences, they would be recognized as species. Infra-specific categories are used to distinguish somewhat finer variation among individuals in nature and are often little more than ecotypic variants.

3) Some really good professional mammologists and wildlife biologists and population geneticists are involved with developing management plans for wolves in this country. I'd be very reluctant to second guess them on the science [the same argument can/should be used for accepting the science on which conclusions about global warming is based, but there are still global warming deniers out there]. If they accept that introducing wolves from Canada into ecosystems in the northern Rockies is an acceptable replacement for the extirpated genetic stock, then I'm not going to argue.

D

PS, I'm going fishin' in a few minutes; y'all will have to carry on without me.
 
#234 ·
I don't think anyone is disputing that Canis lupus occidentalis was the subspecies introduced to Yellowstone and Idaho as that has been well documented and was part of the plan (as this plan was pre-genetic testing). But, as salmo_g stated earlier, it helps to make one's point with the correct info.
 
#237 ·
Another "aside" to throw onto this discussion; how many people are aware that the Russians have had an ongoing research project regarding domestication of both the Siberian wolf and the fox? It's been going on for over 30 years, and they've been able to domesticate the fox to the level of a house pet, but not the wolf. I find this really strange, since I've always assumed that our dogs were domesticated from wolves. Apparently not!
 
#239 ·
Another "aside" to throw onto this discussion; how many people are aware that the Russians have had an ongoing research project regarding domestication of both the Siberian wolf and the fox? It's been going on for over 30 years, and they've been able to domesticate the fox to the level of a house pet, but not the wolf. I find this really strange, since I've always assumed that our dogs were domesticated from wolves. Apparently not!
You can domesticate a wolf as you think of "domesticated". However, once domesticated, it no longer resembels a wolf. Closest are the Wolfdog. Wolf usually mixed with malamutes/husky/german shepherds. They look somewhat similar to wolves...well sorta. The wolfdog community referres to the % of wolf in a dog as "content %". Content % being the ammount of wolf in it. The closer they get to domestication as we think of it, the lower the content. ie in the teens %. You could take a few packs of wolves and have them looking like weiner dogs in about 10 - 15 years if you knew what you were doing. Their dna is hyper mutatable.

These animals have no place on the ESA list. Well, no more of a place than the wild dogs that would result from the humaine society dumping all of their leftover pitbulls into the woods where I take my kids hiking.
 
#241 ·
I refer again to the wolf that lived with me. 100% pure Alaskan born in the wild and raised by man, wolf. She was a sweetie. The only time you would guess she was not a "dog", other than her appearance, was when you watched her run on the tundra or heard her howl and communicate with the local pack. Maybe they were trading recipes. Never even heard her growl, even in self defense from my wife's mean as hell Siamese. Carol was worried when we brought home our baby but she sniffed, gave him a lick and acted like she always did. Kind of like a Lab in wolf's clothing. Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
#251 ·
All I'm say'n, is until one of those buggers jumps into the river and hijacks my steelie, I'm okay with them being around. Well that, or if they start climbing the Space Needle, because really...who's gonna clean up THAT mess huh?
 
#252 ·
While I doubt a single opinion was changed through this thread, it's been highly entertaining. I take it that those who aren't happy about wolf migration regard them in the same manner as many of us regard Columbia River sea lions. The flip side is the concept of places where apex predators other than ourselves exist is one that has romantic/nostalgic appeal to many who make it a point to live and play here. I certainly wouldn't mind wolf or grizzly hunts in a hypothetical future where there are plenty of them around..
 
#253 ·
I take it that those who aren't happy about wolf migration regard them in the same manner as many of us regard Columbia River sea lions.
I think this is a "bingo!" I don't dislike any of the apex predators and it is a thrill to see them, however I also believe that some regulation is in order to prevent property loss, decimation of other healthy or otherwise resources, etc. when their numbers and/or adverse impact become an issue. That being said, if Idaho offers a reasonably-priced wolf tag this year, I do intend to regulate one . . . not because I hate them, but because I am a hunter. This has been a most entertaining read.
 
#258 ·
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
Isn't it also a sort of anthropomorphization to say that wolves did something indiscriminately?

I'm not saying that the wolves didn't kill the calves and leave them without eating them--but that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't have a reason for doing it.

Like any other animal, I would assume that a wolf would have to have a pretty good reason for expending the amount of energy it takes to kill something. They aren't going to just waste that energy, going around killing for the fun of it. We may not understand why it happens, but that doesn't mean we should assign some sinister motive to it.

Jason
 
#259 ·
Thanks for saying please, but consider how foolish you have proven to be to the forum membership by attempting to exile someone to the sandbox. Just because you don't like what is said, you have NO implied or acknowledged regulatory authority in this instance. Simmer down and enjoy the discussion or leave it alone.
Really? I apologize if I offended or made someone mad. Perhaps I should have put a few smiley faces in there as I thought I was being funny. I was referencing a sandbox as in two kids arguing in a sandbox. It was suppose to be silly/funny/foolish to lighten up the discussion.
 
#260 ·
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
That is very funny, because most "wolf lovers" reduce all the damage to wildlife and ecosystems in ID, WY, MT etc as "mother nature" doing her thing, and the emergency declared by ID is just a conspiracy theory. Again, very funny and entertaining post. Thanks for making me chuckle.
 
#261 ·
Dick if you find any wolves in camp could you please ask them to leave quietly before the rest of us arrive?
Good suggestion. Not sure what I'd do if we got to camp and found wolves already there, lounging around the fire with a glass of single malt plotting an attack on defenseless livestock - or fly fishermen.

K
 
#265 ·
How do you like those apples?
Pretty confrontational I'd say. While it's easy to talk tough as an anonymous participant from another time zone on an Internet forum, I think this would be a LOT friendlier conversation if we were all having it around a campfire.

But I could be wrong . . .

K
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Aubrey
#267 ·
"If it grows you harvest it, if it moves you shoot it, if it swims you catch it." What mans been doing for 1,000 of years and no tree/fur/feather hugging ecologist is going to stop it.

How do you like those apples?
i like those apples fine up until the last 150 years or so. if you want to say that we should keep things they way they have been for 1,000's of years, then you'll need to also roll back the technology and especially the population to what they were before. otherwise it just won't be much longer before there's nothing growing, moving, or swimming - including us. by the way, 1,000 ago nobody killed things just because they moved - that kind of disrespect (and lack of self-respect) is also an invention of modern man.
 
#274 ·
Wolves have no respect I guess, as they "sport kill" and have been documented all over the place for doing it. So I take it you have no respect for the wolves either right?
Hi TFG,

Just curious about your statement that wolves "sport kill," as I've seen something similar said in other places on this thread, and I also responded to a similar post by Ribka.

I guess my trouble with that statement is the idea that the wolves are just doing this for "sport," with no real reason behind it. Killing for sport is indeed something that we (humans) do, and we know that we do it because we talk about it, etc.

But with wolves, I feel like there must be some deeper reason for it. As I said earlier, I think that in most instances a wild animal is not going to expend energy unless they get a good return on that energy. We see this in fishing--fish aren't going to move from a holding lie unless they get a good return on that (either a tasty meal, or maybe scaring something away that might be competing with them).

So with the wolves, there must be some reason that they would expend the energy to kill livestock and not eat them. We can't say that they are just heartless brutes being cruel to sheep. We may not understand why they do it, but I think we should assume they have some good reason for doing it.

And this isn't to say that it is okay, or that it is a free pass for wolves to do it. Far from it. I agree that if a pack of wolves is decimating a rancher's herd, then he/she should have the right to protect his/her herd, or the appropriate government agency should step in and help.

All I'm saying is, let's not insert an emotional, qualitative idea into the argument. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but I think it's important not to assign our own labels to these actions in that way.

Cheers,

Jason
 
#275 ·
Hi TFG,

Just curious about your statement that wolves "sport kill," as I've seen something similar said in other places on this thread, and I also responded to a similar post by Ribka.

I guess my trouble with that statement is the idea that the wolves are just doing this for "sport," with no real reason behind it. Killing for sport is indeed something that we (humans) do, and we know that we do it because we talk about it, etc.

But with wolves, I feel like there must be some deeper reason for it. As I said earlier, I think that in most instances a wild animal is not going to expend energy unless they get a good return on that energy. We see this in fishing--fish aren't going to move from a holding lie unless they get a good return on that (either a tasty meal, or maybe scaring something away that might be competing with them).

So with the wolves, there must be some reason that they would expend the energy to kill livestock and not eat them. We can't say that they are just heartless brutes being cruel to sheep. We may not understand why they do it, but I think we should assume they have some good reason for doing it.

And this isn't to say that it is okay, or that it is a free pass for wolves to do it. Far from it. I agree that if a pack of wolves is decimating a rancher's herd, then he/she should have the right to protect his/her herd, or the appropriate government agency should step in and help.

All I'm saying is, let's not insert an emotional, qualitative idea into the argument. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but I think it's important not to assign our own labels to these actions in that way.

Cheers,

Jason
OK, follow me on this logic...

IF you put a couple wolves in large 10,000ft x 10,000ft pen, with 15 elk, what is going to happen. According to most here, the wolves are so smart and wonderful they will only kill one elk a month because they are so smart and yada dada yada dada. Do you really think Wolves are that smart? Wolves are opportunistic, and if there is an opportunity for an easy fresh kill/meal, it will be killed. Pretty plain and simple.
 
#271 ·
Wolves are killing sheep to keep balance. The western societies don't know anything about that. If people would stop and think what where doing to this planet. We would be better off if we just let nature do its thing. Man thinks we own this planet that's wrong we belong to this earth. Our mother earth is going to wipe us out if we don't change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jason Rolfe
#273 ·
LOL Total nonsense.
 
#284 ·
By the way,

I think I have a problem. I am addicted to this effing thread. I was trying to spend time in other forums, but I just keep coming back. Ugh! I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment.
Hahaha! I've gotta get some work done and make a few bucks this afternoon. Over and out.

K
 
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