Call of the wild

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Alex MacDonald, Apr 17, 2013.

  1. WDFW is aware of the citizens concerns over the expanding state wolf populations.
    They are doing a feasibility study of triploid wolf introductions, which would likely solve all wolf related problems mentioned in previous WFF wolf threads.
    The other option is to plant diploid wolves and have selective harvest seasons for tail clipped only wolves.
  2. You could almost say the same thing about the landscape that wolves inhabited in Washington.
  3. I have spent some time around wolves in Alaska (once had 4 of them trot by me sitting in the brush...close enough I could see their eyes dilate when they finally saw me...they were far more frightened by the encounter than I was, and scrambled off in a blur of speed). They're hardly the equivalent of a T. Rex.

    Wolf attacks on humans are exceedingly rare...even where they exist in large populations.

    The main group I think has a moderately legitimate gripe about the reintroduction of wolves are stockman who run open range operations (I'm not too keen on those fellas either...they overgraze public lands and do a pathetic job of maintaining the fences that keep them from beating the shit out of public waters).

    Since a lot of prople want wolves (mostly city-slickers who have the political power to legislate their will), I think we ought to have a pretty easy process to facilitate repayment for stock losses that have even a slight appearance of wolf predation....that way, even the small number of people actually negatively impacted by their reintroduction will quit whining about it.
  4. I have no problem reimbursing ranchers for lost livestock to wolves, but not if the livestock is free ranging and not contained within a fenced enclosure.

    I don't want my tax dollars going to someone who allows his cattle to roam free in wolf country. The wolf doesn't know the difference between a cow and an elk if it's wandering through the forest.

    I'm not a fan of free range ranching anyway so I have a problem with any claims in regards to cattle lost to wolves if the cattle are wandering around public lands.
    Jim Wallace and sopflyfisher like this.

  5. Krusty sounds like a good screen name for you. If you still hunted you'd be amongst the bunch of whiners (your words).

    If the deer and elk aren't eaten by wolves the survivors will be very skittish. I hunted moose up in Alberta one year and while I saw moose and wolves I only heard deer. Snap a stick while walking and the deer would spook.
  6. Everyone needs an excuse for getting skunked! I guess 'wolves' works as well as anything! In Alaska they use 'bears' as the excuse for an unproductive moose hunt.

    And, as I recall from my hunting days, deer were always spooked by snapping twigs during hunting season. Like a kid around report card time, they get jumpy!
  7. I am happy to have seen this thread - because I was about to go for a walk and now I am reconsidering it. The real question is what sidearm is appropriate for T Rex, wolves, bears (black & grizz), skunks, mice, ground squirrels, marmots, camp robbers, and other chiselers. Thanks for the heads-up. I might have gotten into a bad situation.

    As for ranchers, of course they should be reimbursed for cattle killed by predators on land owned by the US public that they degrade and access for a fraction of its value. They are god-fearin' republicans who don't believe in hand-out.
  8. The main problem is that the legislators representing those areas (which happen to be large areas of open range public land) carry a lot of clout...piss off the rancher, and the pack is killed by government hunters (which is what happened to the 'Wedge Pack' up by Colville). I'd rather pay off the ranchers and keep the wolves too. The reality is that open range ranchers are a powerful group in sparse country...they aren't going away.

    You can argue with them to agree with your point of view (which isn't going to happen, anymore than you're going agree with theirs), or you can pay them off...which totally changes their 'point of view'.

    What's the old Truman saying when he had to get sides with conflicting interests to agree? "Better to have them inside the tent pissing out, than have them outside pissing in."
  9. I don't expect to convince them because as you say, I can't. I grew up with those folks so I know their mind set. Hell, my relatives are some of them!

    So, you use a big stick. Sure, if you ranchers want to take advantage of public property and let your cattle roam free to destroy land and rivers, fine. But you will not be paid for any cattle that are killed by wolves who happen to live on those public lands. Their choice. No fences, no money for killed cattle by wolves.

    This is how you deal with it. No reason for negotiations or anyone trying to convince anyone else... because that ain't going to happen. Again, no fences.
    No money. Period.
    Jim Wallace likes this.
  10. For the record if I'm packing a gun its because I'm unsure about the humans I might encounter, normaly I avoid these places but sometimes I'm forced to go into the big city..
    _WW_ likes this.
  11. I say let nature runs its course and not try to run it for her. One day it to will run us off the edge to extinction too! ;)
    Jim Wallace and Stonefish like this.
  12. There's many cases of anglers turning up dead or disappearing while fishing alone in remote areas. If I do carry it is only when fishing alone in remote areas... and has nothing to do with the fear of four legged beasts or snakes.

    I've encountered humans in remote areas with large guns on their hips and I'd like to be able to return fire if need be :D
  13. Ain't going to happen my friend.
  14. We reimburse the $19 per pound for rib eyes. Free range beef aint cheap
  15. Wow, so much BS in only three pages. Impressive. Silly for any public safety enforcement officer to shoot a dying deer, then remove it from the ecosystem. If WDFW has rules requiring this, that is one point for reconsideration. When the LEO took the wolf's eventual kill and food source away, he altered the natural course of events. Just like man to always think they can make things in nature better. Alex may make some stretch points for emphasis, but know this, a hungry wolf that tasted the blood of his likely kill only to have it taken away will not wait long for its next meal. That meal could prove to be one of opportunity and small mammals beware, even if at a nearby farm or home.

    I'm clearly just an uninformed city slicker, but about two other points that I think are being misconstrued. One, that a large cat will always pounce and that man has little time to react, if any. I'm calling BS on that one for two reasons. I've hiked into locations with big cats and on two occasions actually come in visual contact with them. Not carrying either time. Nothing on my belt or thigh. I stared right at them, one at about 40' the other closer to 70'. They stared at me. I was not alone, but was the lead hiker at the time both times. Maybe I'm not loud enough? Both cases, I was able to reach into my pack to get my trusty e-tool pick/shovel and have it at the ready. My knife was close at hand too, just in case the paw to hand combat ensued. I did not drop my pack for two reasons, one, I've been taught and believe that your pack may just prevent that first paw or jaw chomp from getting your neck and two, my e-tool was accessible without removing my pack. Neither cat pounced. One drank while staring at me staring at him, then quartered away, still staring, and slowly disappeared into the woods. The other watched me until the next hiker arrived, making a lot of noise and asking what I was staring at. That cat bolted, and the second hiker did not even see it. Once the group was together and all were calling BS on me, I took them over to the area where he stood and showed them the tracks.

    One trip we were on our way in from a three day overnighter. The other trip was just a long loop trail. Unsure I would have slept much if those nights were ones requiring me to be in the woods again. I think a little fear and respect of mother nature, her creatures great and small and her power to command all earthy forces is a good thing.

    Now I'm a dad, two young ladies that enjoy my company on the water, at the house or in the woods. If I choose to carry, I do so more for them than for me. When I'm out with other friends, many of them carry. Some are posters in this very thread. None are the types that I'd consider scared when in the woods. I think they do so because they can, they are comfortable doing so, and they know that those tools might make a difference in those rare circumstances.

    Now, as for the reintroduction of an extinct species, or the wrong one that is remotely related to that which was here a century ago but extinct. If something is extinct, does it not fail to exist? If it fails to exist, it also fails to have a population base or range. If reintroduced, it does not immediately have a connection with that pre-extinction range. It will actually develop its own range now in the renewed existence, adapting its own range to the surroundings taking in all critical factors like predators, food supply, topography, weather and all the other things that don't mean crap from before it became extinct. The only thing that matters is the here and now, that some guy shot and stole its food and now it has to go on the hunt again, more tired, more hungry and more likely to take some new existence specific risks.

    Regardless, many here are full of crap. Just putting in my two cents so that I can be part of that crowd, I guess.
    triploidjunkie and dfl like this.
  16. Cannot call it either way except for my one experience on the upper Ruby when we kept smelling a dam awful smell as we made our way downstream. Rounding an oxbow, there on a carcass was a mountain lion right near waters edge on the opposite bank (Ruby's about 15ft wide). It and I froze in a moment of time, then it and I retreated while keeping eye contact. The cat moved into the brush and we decided the fishing was better upstream :) . They say if you have spent any significant in the back country, chances are you have been watched by cats. Since we don't routinely hear about folks getting pounced on, I'd be inclined to agree with Ed.
    Krusty likes this.
  17. Well if I was King God it would! :D

    Anyway, all the paying ranchers for cattle roaming around in wolf country is one of the reasons I don't understand the point of trying to reintroduce the wolves. You've got the farmers and ranchers up in arms. The hunters up in arms. Wolves shot, legally or not. Why?

    What is the end game? I'm an environmentalist and damned proud of it but I simply don't get it.

    I can't see wolves living in harmony with man in the NW. You can't regrow an old growth forest. You certainly can't bring back the giant herds of buffalo that once roamed the country, what exactly are the biologists attempting to gain by reintroducing wolves?
    wolverine and Krusty like this.
  18. It's all a matter of relative risk. We don't tend to worry much about the very much higher probability that we'll be involved in an automobile accident on the way to and from our outdoors recreational location, but over-estimate the probability that we (or our children) will be attacked by a large predator.

    We don't worry about the road; that's our normal environment...but the wild is different territory to most of us...we're just visitors there.

    Big cats, bears, wolves.....if you (and your children, if you have any) have spent much time in the woods (depending on location) one or more of these large predatory critters has taken a look and decided you're bad juju.

    As others have said, the truly dangerous animals walk on two legs, and can be found anywhere. I focus my concerns, and appropriate safeguards, on them.
    dfl likes this.
  19. Well, for one thing, the Endangered Species Act requires protection and re-establishment of those species. The legislators's constituents have supported that legislation.... those most affected, like ranchers and hobby farmers, don't have much voice in the development of associated ESA regulations.

    It's a slippery slope. One might well (and have) argue that the preservation of various threatened anadromous fisheries carries with it way too much cost and effort relative to its benefits....let 'em go....what's the's a lost cause.

    We like the stuff we like, and we don't care about stuff we don't. It's a matter of perspective.
    dfl likes this.
  20. Krusty, anadromous fish are hardly a threat to anyone... same as old growth trees. You can't really compare a large, carnivorous mammal to a fish. The fish are not killing cattle or elk... so you have no large groups hating them.

    I can see the efforts to regain the salmon and steelhead runs because there is no downside. Humans are not waging war against fish.

    There's an adage in science. Just because you can do it, should you? If this is a science project for biologists it is a bad one. There will always be a conflict between man and the wolves. I don't think prospective has anything to do with it. I'm a realist. No one has yet to convince me of the need to reintroduce wolves. ...and as an Environmentalist, I'm certainly open to a logical explanation as to the benefits. But I've yet to hear any.

    I just can't see the justification for returning wolves when they will be killed just as they were before. If, as you mentioned, there is no way to stop ranchers and their open range approach to raising cattle, I can see no way there will not always be a conflict.

    I like wolves and I can see no reason to put them in a situation where cattle ranchers and elk hunters will shoot them on sight.

Share This Page