Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

NFR: And now wolves in the Teanaway drainage

34K views 192 replies 58 participants last post by  fshflthnkng 
#1 ·
#115 ·
I don't even know how to respond to a thread like this. I already know of a wolf that was stalking a hunter last year and he was barely able to get a shot off before it got to him. If you like to go camping in the woods, just keep an eye on the wife and kids....just sayin.
 
#128 ·
Outright BS of the biggest kind. There has been 1 documented case of a wolf attack in North America in well over a hundred years. That was a starving animal on one of the Gulf Islands in Canada. Ignorance, not science is the greatest threat to wolves and all other wildlife.
 
#119 ·
"Leave a light a footprint......"

Celebrate diversity

Makes me want to laugh and puke at the same time.

Have you ever spent time outside of a manicured park?
OK, Ribka, you know nothing about me other than I presumably flyfish and occasionally post on this site. F... you. Rather than flaming you on this group, I'll PM you.
 
#121 ·
I used to hunt deer back in my college days, and, found it to be exciting. But, I wasn't a venison fan so I quit. My guess is the whacko's that are quacking about the wolves and how it's going to affect their hunting success could be right. But, guess they will just have to quit "road hunting" a couple of blocks from their rigs and "really" have to get up in the hills to find the smart big elk that have outwitted the wolves. So pals, no more easy hunts! Ha! Ah, but the elk will be real trophy's I bet!
 
#122 ·
You're a retired bureaucrat, as I read in one of your previous posts, so how does your hunting experience from 40+ years ago have anything to do with this conversation? Or are you just taking this opportunity to insult people in this thread who have actually made posts regarding the topic at hand. People who you may have political differences with. Ever reach across the aisle in your previous dealings or just brand folks who have a different opinion?

Still waiting for you to clarify a comment as asinine as this.

[QUOTEPut Sarah Palin in a helicopter. She'll take care of it....... I'm just hoping the helicopter will have engine trouble tho! ][/QUOTE]

Bobbleheads need only apply.
 
#143 ·
the irony of it all bitterroot. any time an apex predator is involved, the knee jerk from the jerks is kill'um all. in reality, its most likely a small number or ranchers who may be impacted. you know the ones who figure they can free range their stock on land owned by you and me at next to no cost. the same ones for whom mitigation already exists. just another loop hole tax break for a few that the wolves, bears and who knows what else, will help to close, only seems fair.

and the guy in yellowstone? when you enter the domain of any apex predator, you need to assume the risks. same with my friend who was mauled by a brownie while fishing for salmon in AK. then of course, the guy in the ONP who died from being gored by a mountain goat. yah just never know now do'yah bitterroot.
 
#151 ·
Well, I don't believe wolves kill for the fun of it. They kill to eat for khrist sake. There were no wolves in the pictures of the carcasses that were posted on here because there were humans nearby. Quite simple to me. I'm sure they wandered back to feed on the carcasses later. Man is probably the only thing that kills for the fun of it, such as back in the day in shooting buffalo from trains. I think I saw a sports program some time ago where guys were shooting birds for fun. I think it may have been down in Argentina. It wouldn't surprise me to see a small cattle rancher lose some stock in the Teanaway in the future. You can bet they'll be targeting the wolves then.
 
#161 ·
gt what you say, I can not disagree with. Still, I understand the hunters frustrations. I get it, and I think most others do (whether they admit it or not). One way to look at it is, if the wolves had been there the whole time (like it use to be long ago) hunters wouldn't know the difference between the way it has been (before the wolves in recent history) and now - that the wolves are here.

Did that make sense? Unfortunately, the wolves don't have a "trained" knowledge of where to go and where not to go - thus causing problems. I'm speaking only of the fact of lost farm animals, big problem in Montana right now.

Think of it this way; I wonder how many here actually know that the grizzly bear use to be mainly a prairie animal. The modern age has pushed them into the hills.

Can you imagine if they were "planted" into the Ronan Valley? (west side of the Mission Mts, MT) Those bears would absolutely wreak havoc on those small towns, getting into the garbage, etc.

Take any animal out of a habitat, and things change. The balance now is that man has taken place of the wolf (in some ways) as the "weed out" predator. Something that I'm ok with, even though I'm not a hunter myself.
 
#164 ·
One way to look at it is, if the wolves had been there the whole time (like it use to be long ago) hunters wouldn't know the difference between the way it has been (before the wolves in recent history) and now - that the wolves are here.
you only have to go back to the late-60's to see elk numbers similar to what they are now...

and there weren't wolves then.

wolves are having an impact but they are not the only impact. even scientists who say the wolves are having a high impact admit wolves are not the only factor in the reduction of elk herds.
 
#162 ·
One way to look at it is, if the wolves had been there the whole time (like it use to be long ago) hunters wouldn't know the difference between the way it has been (before the wolves in recent history) and now - that the wolves are here.

A quick check of Wikipedia shows the present and historical range of wolves around the world. Pretty sure they were here before modern-day humans - "Wolves once ranged over much of North America north of Mexico City, save for parts of California." While we can argue about the "save parts of California" text, we can't argue with precedence. Wolves were here first, humans killed them off.
 
#163 ·
The high entertainment value is provided by the extremists in the wolf debate. The knuckleheads who would kill them all off and return the western states to their 20th century "no wolves" status, and the environmental groups who are preventing viable wolf management plans from being used are a far greater problem than the general presence of wolves are. Montana and Idaho developed wolf management plans, and the US Fish & Wildlife Service approved them. Unfortunately certain groups make their livings by sucking currency from generally ill-informed wildlife lovers who are persuaded that all wolves should be protected and none killed for any reason. Most Montanans I talked with this past week prefer having wolves back in the Rockies, provided they are managed so as to avoid the huge boom and bust cycles that are very common with many predator-prey relationships. Then there were the vocal extremists - you can actually get elected to local office simply by running an "eradicate the wolves" campaign - these folks are a primary reason the environmental groups are winning in court. Meanwhile, wolves, elk, certain moose populations, and some deer are entering classic boom-bust predator-prey cycles because a Montana district federal court is denying the implementation of the USFWS-approved Montana Wolf Management Plan.

And naive as I am, I recall thinking in recent weeks how satisfied I was that Washington is in the final stage of completing its first ever wolf management plan. I thought, "wow", how unusually pro-active for Washington State to ever get ahead of the curve on anything, instead of reacting after the fact. I was talking with a Montana fishing guide about this and now realize that the more likely prospect is that the WA wolf management plan will also end up in court, with management actions and in-actions determined by extremists, instead of by wildlife managers.

Well, our fisheries are managed as much by politics as by science, so why expect any different with wildlife, particularly when it concerns charismatic mega-fauna like wolves and grizzly bears? About the only thing I'm certain of is that it won't take until the year 2500 to achieve Idiocracy.

Sg
 
#165 ·
And naive as I am, I recall thinking in recent weeks how satisfied I was that Washington is in the final stage of completing its first ever wolf management plan. I thought, "wow", how unusually pro-active for Washington State to ever get ahead of the curve on anything, instead of reacting after the fact. I was talking with a Montana fishing guide about this and now realize that the more likely prospect is that the WA wolf management plan will also end up in court, with management actions and in-actions determined by extremists, instead of by wildlife managers.
it was interesting the amount of time the open public meeting with phil anderson this past winter in aberdeen spent on wolves. while wdfw may indeed be proactive i think they are being pushed pretty hard by constituents about wolves.

while extremism is often frowned upon, i think that if you start compromising from the middle you've already lost. if wolf "extremists" had started in the middle, i doubt we'd even be having this conversation because they would have never been reintroduced. on the other side, without their extremism there probably wouldn't be management plans that allow harvest.
 
#169 ·
"I see a lot of you guys , west side urban dwellers, don't spend too much time out in the wilderness areas in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The wolves have decimated the many of the herds or elk, deer and especially the moose over there. I fish and hike a lot in the Clearwater in Idaho and Lolo in Montana and NW WY and the elk and deer pops are way down from there because of the re-introduction of the wolves and the banning of hunting of wolves. I talked to Game Officer there last year in the Clearwater, ID by Kelly Creek and he said he found over 80 deer, moose and elk carcasses in the Spring killed by wolves. None were eaten just killed."

I'm from the west side, but hardly a city boy. I grew up in a small town in the Cascade foothills and have dealt with wild animals my entire life. I remember a fishing trip on the Skokomish River in the Olympic mountains several years ago. I had been fishing for a little while with no luck when a family of River Otters decided to join me. They proceeded to pull several trout out of the hole I was currently fishing on and carrying the fish to a log jam where they would eat them. I did what any country boy should do in that situation. I dropped my fishing pole and pulled out my camera. You see, I wasn't just fishing this particular river because I wanted to catch a fish. I was fishing there because I wanted to be in the wild. If I wanted to catch a stupid fat trout without any effort, I would have gone to a trout farm.

Nobody likes change. Wolves have not been a viable part of Washington's ecosystems for longer than most of us have been alive. But you can be sure, the game animals that live here now evolved alongside wolves and the state in which their populations are currently living is not natural. Wolves are not suddenly going to destroy the ecosystems that they evolved in. But they will turn them into something they haven't been for a long time. "Wild"
 
#171 ·
Welcome Lyle, welcome to the madness.
I like the idea of there being wolves and grizzly bears in the wild places I hunt and fish.
I would kill a wolf or bear and the cougar if I felt I had to.
The guy that rises livestock doesn't want to lose his crop, just like the apple grower who kills the deer and elk that eat his trees. The rancher will kill the wolf, bear, or big cat if he gets a chance.
If common sense is used everything will balance out, except people. People know no balance. Just my .02
 
#173 ·
Obviously an emotional issue and hot button for some. I doubt that anyone will sway the
opinion of anybody else. What I thought was interesting was the comment in the article.

"The question now is, does the state have ability to manage these wolves?" he said.
"I guess we'll see."

Having watched them micromanage the fishing programs in this state for years, I doubt
that they do.
 
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