Call of the wild

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

  1. Trustfunder Active Member

    Posts: 169
    rock creek
    Ratings: +71 / 0
    Got it.... Did I say "invasive species"? I don't remember but an animal brought down in a cage from up north, enclosed in a 100 acre pen, fed road kill game and turned loose in a "park/wilderness for the benefit of the people" must be a non-invasive species. While the pike minnow a native species is being slaughtered so a guy can eat a hatchery fed salmon.... your biology makes perfect sense to me.
  2. bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Posts: 2,265
    m-ville
    Ratings: +676 / 0
    I'm not understanding this invasive or noninvasive debate. By my way of thinking due to evolution or a shift in migration pattern due to climate change, natural disasters and other shit that happens unexplainible. Would not it be possible for any plant or animal on earth to show up any were else on earth as part of a century old evolation? We know this has happened with people in the last 2,000 or so years.. now wolfs are makeing a comeback I'm hopeing I can adjust to the change .
  3. Alosa Active Member

    Posts: 341
    Seattle
    Ratings: +142 / 1
    What a ridiculously stupid statement. Species naturally expand their ranges over a variety of temporal scales, and humans are no exception.

    I get so goddamned sick and tired of people spouting opinions around here as though it were fact (actual fact...not what you've managed to convince yourself of). This thread has been 7 pages of utter nonsense from a bunch of wannabees!! If all you 'know-nothing experts' want to participate in the discussion on any meaningful level, I suggest you pick up a book on invasive species biology and read it to expand your own knowledge base before spouting ridiculous nonsense as though you knew something biologically relevant about the topic! All some of you have done is show how LITTLE you actually understand. Hell, some of you don't even know what qualifies as an invasive species. So ridiculous.
  4. Alosa Active Member

    Posts: 341
    Seattle
    Ratings: +142 / 1
    First, it's not MY biology. It's biology. The only biology. I don't know of any other biology. Secondly, I didn't provide a definition that fit some sort of bullshit agenda. The definition is objective. Regardless, you've missed the most important part of the definition, which, frankly, shocks the shit out of me becaause I even highlighted it in red for you!

    Wolves are NOT an invasive species in Washington because the state constitutes a part of its natural historical range. It's just that simple folks...they are not a non-native species to the region. We may have eradicated thaem 100 years ago, but that DOES NOT MATTER. They hhave been RE-introduced, NOT introduced. These differences are not as subtle as they may seem.
  5. jersey livin' the dream

    Posts: 224
    sonoma county
    Ratings: +69 / 0
    "I get so goddamned sick and tired of people spouting opinions around here.."
    Couldn't agree more sir, but its too entertaining and our freedom to do so...you take some liberty in your assault against "wannabees" and "know nothing experts". However, this is what the boys in Philly decided was cool roughly 238 years ago. Its time to accept it.

    Again, as stated earlier, pertaining to wolf re-population; Gray Wolf in comparison to the Canadian "MacKenzie" Wolf is a big swing. Aww heck, google-it for fun.

    There is a reason to make such a decision. Consider budgets and publicly funded projects where the success of said project means permanent funding (employment). -the ratchet-effect of Gov't budgeting should hit home now. Consider this, if one were in charge of such an undertaking, would one recommend placing a species of wolf back into the wild where there is a smaller or larger chance of survival? Any "know nothing expert" would make the choice on the biggest bad-ass wolf one could find. Go big or go home!

    This began as a point of showing how nature should be allowed to run its natural course, if I may Alex. However, this course of action was interrupted by a dumb ass, facilitated by a poor decision, and initiated by a very bad species choice. Seems ridiculously simple to understand.
    ribka likes this.
  6. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,320
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +879 / 0
    "This began as a point of showing how nature should be allowed to run its natural course, if I may Alex. However, this course of action was interrupted by a dumb ass, facilitated by a poor decision, and initiated by a very bad species choice. Seems ridiculously simple to understand."

    Works for me, Jersey! I'm viewing this with an historian's perspective, not a biologist's. And historically, no wolves have been zipping around the area for between 163 and 100 years. In anybody but a geologist's book, that's a lot of time. All I'm referring to here is a span of time, and find it strange that people don't want to wrap their minds around a simple concept. That's why i made the comment about dinosaurs. It's simply a matter of (in this case, geologic) time.

    Dick, thanks for the clarification on reproduction of the larger fauna; I was thinking more of the smaller critters when I wrote that and didn't make that clarification. Pretty much, the only cervid which can't take care of itself is the very young, the old, and the injured/weak, so I don't worry much about the population being decimated by wolf predation. What pisses me off is the idea that a very small but very vocal minority can convince some government idiot that screwing around with the ecosystem is a good idea. Remember when the legislator from eastern WA wanted to float a bill to relocate wolves into more urban areas to "share our good fortune" with people on, say Vashon? What an outcry of NIMBY that produced! If it's good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander, but that seems not to be the way it works, does it!
  7. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,320
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +879 / 0
    Alosa, your comments seem more, shall we say, strident as we discuss this. I'm curious why-you seem to have something of a stake in this issue and write as if you know more than most of us. So I'm wondering what your background is?

    As I said, I approach this from an historian's perspective. I've taught history at a University (UC Davis) for almost 35 years, but also have a minor in paleoanthro, which requires a fair amount of geology in addition to the physical aspects of human evolution. I've been outside all my life, in every ecosystem except the Saharan, thank God. No interest in deserts or jungles whatsoever (but I know the jungles and highlands of Vietnam well enough).
  8. Alosa Active Member

    Posts: 341
    Seattle
    Ratings: +142 / 1
    Your damn right my comments are strident, and that's because I've had quite enough of peoples opinions on biologically related issues being stated as factual, when they aren't. It can lead to misinformation and the shaping of public opinion on important issues that deviate from the truth. That misinformation can impact resource management, AND THAT PISSES ME OFF!

    As a current university educator and researcher in the conservation genetics of anadromous fishes, and whose primary research deals with invasive American shad (an ACTUAL invasive species), my ultimate goal is to provide my students with the tools necessary to distinquish fact from fiction. My frustration with this thread is that its comprised of more fiction than fact.

    As I've said before Alex, I agree with 75% of the things you say on here, but in this particular instance we couldn't be further apart. I appreciate the time you've spent in the woods and the anecdotal evidence you've provided based on your personal observations of wolves. But speaking as though you were some sort of authority figure on wolves and invasive species is like me saying I know what it's like to be a navy seal in combat because I've fired a gun a few times. It's offensive. I haven't spent the last 18 years of my life studying various aspects of biology and gaining a reputation as a solid Ph.D. level scientist to be insulted by those who think they know what they are talking about. The difference between me and most other biologists at this level is that I bother to spend the time responding to these issues in an effort to educate people. Most wouldn't give it the time of day.

    If I ever needed a vacation it's NOW!
  9. sopflyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 720
    Where the fish are located
    Ratings: +431 / 0
    Why couldn't they get bieber. Perhaps they sensed a future bieber and eliminated him. If so yeah for wolves.
    Alex MacDonald likes this.
  10. sopflyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 720
    Where the fish are located
    Ratings: +431 / 0

    No i don't miss the point, and i stand behind my opinion. I work in the woods and have so for a number of years. Much of this work in wilderness. U just don't share the view that the animals of the forest are dangerous if u have half a brain. I've encountered cougar many times, never been attacked. Ed, were u attacked? Just cause they are there doesn't mean they are evil. I mean seriously when did everyone start menstruating over some wildlife. I have never had a problem with the wildlife eating me andmmost that fear it and lament it are either dumb, inexperienced, or want to dramatize their adventures and thus are kinda t the class of truck Hunters I've already described. I mean I've learned so much in this thread from the attack habits of cougars, to the massive dangers our forests pose. Stay home if you're scared, or pack (not worth the weight for me) but for gods sake quit talking out your ass. Thanks to all the "real woodmen" for educating me on the perils that will almost certainly get me. Only in America.
  11. bitterroot Love vintage graphite!

    Posts: 1,428
    Montana
    Ratings: +214 / 1
    Questions...
    1. Other than Sasquatch, do wolves have a predator?
    2. Typically, how many pups in a wolf's litter?
    3. Do wolves ever kill, say, elk calves, and not eat the kill?
    ribka likes this.
  12. sopflyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 720
    Where the fish are located
    Ratings: +431 / 0
    U haven't heard. The have liters of twenty our better, capable of killing by day four. All they do is kill, and just for fun. Man is their preferred prey, and their hide is impervious to small arms fire
  13. Vladimir Steblina Retired Forester...now fishing instead of working

    Posts: 725
    Wenatchee, WA
    Ratings: +236 / 0
    Well, its a good thing you didn't work as a Forester for the past 40 years!! From timber harvest levels, to saving the spotted owl, ORV vehicle use, grizzly bear recovery and now wolves. None of the facts mattered.

    Facts do not matter. People always act in their own self-interest and make up some interesting arguments to justify their positions. For entertainment, look at the city of San Francisco's position on restoring Hetch Hetchy.

    Yes, that misinformation can impact not only natural resources but people as well. The President's Forest Plan.....an owl that will go extinct and 30,000 high wage jobs lost. Wow, a twofer. Eliminated BOTH the owl and jobs that people said they cared about protecting.

    But notice nobody cares anymore.

    The one scientist that got it right is surfing off the Kona coast in retirement!! I even doubt that he cares anymore.
    Alex MacDonald and sopflyfisher like this.
  14. Trustfunder Active Member

    Posts: 169
    rock creek
    Ratings: +71 / 0
    "Wolves are NOT an invasive species in Washington because the state constitutes a part of its natural historical range. It's just that simple folks...they are not a non-native species to the region. We may have eradicated thaem 100 years ago, but that DOES NOT MATTER. They hhave been RE-introduced, NOT introduced. These differences are not as subtle as they may seem."

    Wolves have been documented in the N Rockies (in the states) from as far back as the 1970's.... so why in the hell did we have to re-introduce a species that was already present from natural migration? Sounds a little subjective to me and based on a bullshit agenda.

    The fact is, decisions on the wolf introduction were more political than sound biological management. Things have drastically changed when the wolf use to walk around WA, unfortunately the decision makers didn't factor this into the equation. Lewis n Clark are dead, and so is the wild west. We have fractured segments of what we define as wilderness to accommodate the wolf with a limited supply of game.

    When the N.Pike Minnow is placed on the endangered list because some "biology expert" made a decision of these predators being harmful to the salmon population... I will drink your kool-aid.
    ribka likes this.
  15. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,486
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +786 / 0
    I think what Alosa is trying to say, was best put into words often attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

    Some of the facts that seem to be twisted a bit (to be polite) in some of these posts include:

    1) "invasive species" (Alex et al.)

    Alosa has done a good job of clearing this up.

    2) "historically, no wolves have been zipping around the area for between 163 and 100 years. In anybody but a geologist's book, that's a lot of time." (Alex)

    To an evolutionary biologist, where time is best measured in generations, that is a very short time, indeed. Alex falls into the trap we all fall into at one time or another of gauging time by our own life span. I've relearned this most recently from my 7-yr old grandson.

    3) "pertaining to wolf re-population; Gray Wolf in comparison to the Canadian "MacKenzie" Wolf is a big swing." (Jersey)

    All wolves in North America are gray wolves. Mammalogists disagree on the taxonomic subdivisions within gray wolves; some distinguishing a subspecies that was extirpated from most of the western US from one found farther north (the Mackenzie wolf). All agree that, genetically, the most closely related wolves to those extirpated from the Rockies and the PNW are those found in southern Alberta and SW BC, the source of reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone and Idaho. I think most of the wolves in WA are naturally migrating wolves from BC, and not derived from the reintroduced Idaho wolves (although some may have come from there, as the Oregon wolves have).

    4) "a very small but very vocal minority can convince some government idiot that screwing around with the ecosystem is a good idea." (Alex)

    Reintroduction of wolves has been VERY popular in the US. Pockets of dissent from that generally favorable opinion exist primarily in areas where the wolves have become established and, even there, represent a relatively small, but vocal, group, consisting of some (not all) ranchers and some (not all) hunters, and some others. Chief among those who support the reintroduction of wolves are ecologists, who see the ecological changes as going a long way towards restoring healthy natural ecosystems, which had been altered by human-caused extirpation of wolves.

    The Endangered Species Act, along with the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, which were enacted at +/- the same time, all represent efforts to roll back the negative impacts of human alteration of natural ecosystems. If I recall the debates correctly from the 1970s, the human health advantages were only secondary to the environmental issues, which were very emotional and widespread, in influencing passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts.

    Okay, everyone, back to spouting your opinions...

    Dick
  16. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,486
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +786 / 0
    Trustfunder,
    While not a taxonomically accurate statement, the Northern Pikeminnow is a red herring, when raised in the context of the discussion here.
    D
    SteveA, smallieFanatic and Krusty like this.
  17. Roper Idiot Savant

    Posts: 4,285
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ratings: +770 / 1
    If no one is an expert here and all we have is opinions and anecdotal data, what the hell are we arguing about?
    Krusty, sopflyfisher and Salmo_g like this.
  18. Krusty Active Member

    Posts: 907
    Spokane, WA
    Ratings: +600 / 0
    Pretty much the same way most everything on the internet, and barstools, is argued....but it's been conducted in a largely civil manner.
  19. triploidjunkie Active Member

    Posts: 2,315
    Grand Coulee, WA
    Ratings: +1,263 / 0
    There was an article in the newspaper the other day about a pair of wolves that showed up at a ranch just outside of Wenatchee. What caught my attention is that in the two weeks they had been there, they killed 14 deer, two bull elk, and one pregnant cow elk. And thats just two wolves. How many animals a week do a pack of ten wolves kill? The wolves that were here before traditionally only had packs of4-6. This new sub-species commonly have packs of8-12.
  20. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,473
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,617 / 0
    From reading internet forum threads about wolves I've learned that wolves kill ALL the elk and livestock, regardless of the number of wolves in the pack. I also learned from these same sources that invasive wolves have been re-introduced into WA by WDFW and the USFS in black helicopters. The main problem with all the stuff I learn on the internet is having to sort out the facts from the fiction, as there is an abundance of the latter.

    Sg