Washington we have a problem ( wolf attack )

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Tom O'Riley, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. I will take you for your word. I don't have the time nor desire to read up on some wolves that are doing what wolves do. There are way to dman many people also and many of them kill for sport. People have a huge detremental affect on every enviroment they come in contact with. Just sayin'.
  2. The concept of a "shifting baseline" has been an effective metaphor for explaining why each generation accepts diminishing runs of salmon and steelhead without the outrage that we all should feel. If someone grows up with the runs we have today, that becomes their normal or "baseline" for what anadromous populations should be.

    The same concept applies to elk populations, but in the opposite direction. The 'baseline' we have for elk populations in much of the northern Rockies is much higher than what the same habitat would have been able to support prior to the extirpation of wolves. People now decry the reduction in elk populations in Idaho and elsewhere brought about by the introduction of wolves, but it is really just bringing nature back into a balance that is more akin to what it was in the past. The huge elk populations of recent decades have dramatically altered some of the ecosystems they inhabit. The studies in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem show this nicely.

    Folks who think that elk exist solely for the purpose of hunters to shoot, are the ones complaining loudest about the competition that the wolves now provide. Get over it.

  3. So when do you think this "baseline" will level out with a wolf that is 50% larger than what was here?

    They are a problem, and will continue to be a problem, unless hunters are able to hunt them.
  4. iagree
  5. What special wolf is 50% bigger? Historically gray wolves inhabited this area, the reintroduced ones are gray wolves.
  6. Typical response for someone who is Naieve in this situation. People who held the view you have are the main reaseon Idaho has called it an emergency situation. Tell you what, lets take 300 of these large wolves and put them in the olympic penninsula for 10 years, and let them destroy the roosevelt elk herds. NO wait, it will just be what nature is doing --- Balancing it all out... NOT. Come on get with the program and read up on this before you speak this nonsense.
  7. Kerry just for the record, I would had starved to death by now if it wasn't for costco & mcdonalds. My constant hunting & fishing failures over the last few years have forced me to rely on costco & mcdonalds to sustain me.
  8. Doesn't seem to work very well. Even with facts, unless they are "trapped in their cabin", some just chose to believe what they want.

    Wouldn't life be easier if we could all hide in a bubble of ignorance? :beathead:
  9. this is the biggest crock of crap i have encountered in a long while.

    a. wolves are not 50% bigger than they were, nor are their packs any larger
    b. wolves do not kill for sport
    c. if you've seen one internet photoshop hoax, you;ve seen them all
  10. I8abug,

    The article you linked appeared to be an opinion piece. I didn't see reference to any documentation about pack sizes greater than 20 and up to 40 or 50. That flies in the face of what has previously been common knowledge about the social hierarchy of wolves, so you need to post references that can be validated if you want that to be received as credible.

    I was up close and possibly a bit too personal with a pack of 5 wolves in the YNP backcountry a few years ago. It seems we walked up not knowing they were there and kicked them out of their daybeds. They wandered off a little ways; we looked at them; and they looked at us for about an hour. Never felt threatened, but maybe they weren't hungry that afternoon.

  11. This was taken by friends of ours near the South Fork of the Clearwater. Not sure, but I think these are a wee bit bigger than the grey wolf that use to roam the area at one time.

    View attachment 45862
  12. Misinformation, many examples have shown that wolves will kill for sport. Take for example the 120 sheep killed at one time outside of Dillon and not eaten. Wolves will do the same with elk in deep snow.

    All the misinformation circulated on both sides of the debate is incredible.
  13. Sg, I don't know what you are getting at...? I don't think they are going to attack people or "surround our houses..". Never implied that at all. They are, as I stated before, a problem.

    I never once implied they are going to start to attack people. You are not the only one to encounter these things up close and personal. I'm not afraid of them attacking me. Though I think I would be a bit startled. I'm way more leary of a grizzly bear or a moose than I am of a wolf. But grizzlies and moose aren't destroying herds of cattle either.

    Don't assume something about me because I (like others) are being a voice about the problems they create. My stance is, and has been, they are starting to create problems. I said nothing more than that.

    I am simply saying, that unless the states start issuing tags, they are going to continue to be a growing problem. If they issue tags, like for every other predator, I have no problem with them. I think hunters could keep the packs in check. Right now, they are having their way, and that they are bigger than the native type that was here,....2+2=4. Cattle and sheep herds are being depleted, along with the other wild animals. I'll bet you $100, that if this is not kept in check, our role as "God" will be looked back on and some serious thought will be put into, "Hmm, maybe this was a bad idea."

    But the tree huggers get their way, and later they will have moved on to some fruit fly that's going extinct.

    As far as articles go, everything has a slant either to one side or the other. One person could have written that same piece with the slant that, "Hey look! Mother Nature is making a comeback with huge strides!" <- In fact, that could have been the title...with pun inteneded. But, but...the problem would still be there. So opinionated or not, makes no difference.

    I can't wrap my head around how people get all excited, respond to things, without checking or researching the facts. Slant it how you want. Wolves are here, they are creating problems, and we have to deal with it. How are you going to argue that?

    What? They aren't climbing up the Space Needle...so they aren't a problem?
  14. Tallflyguy, are you aware that wolves existed with elk for 10s of thousands of years before western people came to these lands? Were the elk decimated for 10s of thousands of year yet somehow were able to survive? Right now there are a lot of fat, lazy, (basically domesticated) elk which have not faced significant predation except by humans with firearms, in whihc case fitness was not that great of a factor, (ie no elk is going to outrun a bullet). The elk population will surely decline, becasue now there is a predator base, when the elk herds decline than wolf production will be decreased and the peopulations will find a balance. Sure the balance will move form year to year, season-to-season but it will be a new baseline.
  15. There is a well accepted, if not well understood, association between body size and latitude in mammals, called "Bergman's Rule." Simply stated, any species with a wide latitudinal distribution, or any group of related species with such a distribution, will tend to exhibit smaller body size towards the equator and larger towards the poles. A number of physiological explanations have been suggested to account for this. This is true for gray wolves, too, with the largest specimens in the far north Canada, Alaska, and Russia. However, the source for the Yellowstone and Idaho introductions were much farther south in Alberta and adjoining British Columbia than those arctic populations. In fact they were from only a couple hundred miles north of the regions where they were introduced. They were unlikely to be 50% larger than those that existed in the regions where they were introduced. That said, the abundant and naive resources available to the wolves during their first several years no doubt permitted them to reach their individual growth potential, which may well have been substantially larger than the last remaining wolves that were extirpated in those same regions after generations of hunting and poisoning.

    The 2010 report from the USFWS, who are charged with tracking the introduced and native wolf populations reports a count of 1651 wolves in the northern Rockies (including all of the areas that have introduced wolves) comprising 244 packs for an average pack size of 6.7 animals. The packs are slightly larger in Idaho, where the census of 705 animals (not counting packs that are predominantly in adjoining states, but may have a portion of their range in Idaho) is apportioned among 87 packs for an average pack size of 8.1 animals. So, I'm not sure where the legends of huge wolf packs is coming from.

    For those who are interested in learning more information about the wolves in the northern Rockies, it's not hard to go to the source and see what the US Fish and Wildlife Service has to say.

    USFWS Wolf site: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

    Here's the link to the 2010 report: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt10/index.html

  16. Ahhhh another Naive believer. Sorry wrong on all accounts. Wolves do kill for sport, this has been documented by Idaho Fish and Game, Multiple state biologists, and many citizens. Photos are not photoshopped.
  17. Do you have any links to articles or documents stating this?

Share This Page