NFR: And now wolves in the Teanaway drainage

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Lugan, Jul 5, 2011.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Maybe so, I haven't seen the data, but that was not my exact point. My point was simply that if wolves had always been there, hunters would have to take them into account for whatever reason. The fact that they have not been (in recent years) makes it harder to adjust for the fact that they are here now, competing for the same animal - elk.
  7. I've got a very nice Steelhead print I can sell you PT. Come on over, I'll meet you in Kingston by the ferry![/QUOTE]

    I offered to buy that print. I was supposed to meet you and I'm sorry. Shove it up your ass and email me a pic. Full payment will be in the mail. Sorry I couldn't meet you but my father in law had a stroke that morning. I had to take care of his business while the family took care of him.

    This was also sent via PM.
  8. ...
  9. "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"
  10. +1

    Welcome, Lyle!
  11. 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
  12. Say it aint so wolfs in the teanaway, next thing you know there will be Tenkara flyfishers wading that fabled stream !!!!
  13. 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.
  14. Comemon Guys,

    Can't wait to hear the howl of the wolf while camping out. Something I haven't heard in the lower 48 in my lifetime. Being an avid elk hunter I understand the impact wolves will have on elk numbers. But hey, the challenge is the reason we love elk hunting. It will be a little harder to bring home an elk, so what? Better to focus on habitat and improved winter range than rant about the wolf.
  15. I shouldn't.....

    John, think of it this way:

    You live in or near north Idaho, and love fishing for those cutties and steelhead. All of a sudden, some "naturalists" get together and decide, "Hey, you know what? Squaw fish were once more prevalent in these waters than they are now. Let's "reintroduce them, just a few though."

    Little by little, the cutty and steelie numbers go down, and those Squaw fish are starting to show up in numbers and places that they didn't use to habitat. That's the same scenario the wolves are having on the herds.

    Well that, and they are eating people. :clown:
  16. I think the OP has ample amounts of food and resources to support at least 500 or more grizzly bears. Lets reintroduce some large kodiak/brown bears to the OP! Seems right if they can introduce large canadian wolves here.
  17. There is bigfoot in the woods too, but you don't hear anyone getting up in arm's about them!
  18. While we are at it... I think the waters and fish below the dams can support a couple more thousand sea lions. They deserve to be there... right? Who cares if they kill a bunch of fish and reduce the salmon and steelhead run by 80%. Nature will balance it all out. Its all good. Make love not war... smoke a fatty!
  19. Cause they're not eating people....duh? :clown:

    Ok, I'm done.....sorry.
  20. Where's the proof that they aren't?

Share This Page