Wolves on the Westside?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by scottr, Aug 19, 2012.

  1. Hey now, leave me out of your statement. I have no opinion one way or the other in regards to wolves. I don't have enough information to form a good one. You have helped me understand some of the evidence but understanding one small piece does not make an opinion.
    jlar, Bill Aubrey and dflett68 like this.
  2. If the Native Americans eliminated the competition in the hunting grounds, then the Transplanted Americans are trying to do the same thing now. Did the Native Americans exterminate all the wolves, or was it the Transplanted Americans? Today's elk hunters fear the competition that the wolf poses in the field? Is that why the elk hunters are dropping so many other elk hunters these days?
  3. as I've said before.. These debates are like aurgueing with the wife, in a short amount of time its hard to tell what the topic is!!!!!!

  4. :D
  5. Jason Rolfe said:
    I'm wondering if there are any studies or theories that explain why wolves would kill something (livestock, for example) without eating it. Would be interesting to learn more about that occurrence. I'd also be interested in learning how often this actually happens.​
    Quote="Kent Lufkin, post: 759123, member: 303"]Me too. The only time I've heard or read anything about that is when it comes from the 'Only Good Wolf is a Dead Wolf' crowd.

    Anybody ever see or read Farley Mowat's Never Cry Wolf?



    Now you can read about a verified instance. While. as stated by the wolf expert quoted in the first article, such instances of wolves killing far more than they intend to eat are not the norm, they do happen with some regularity. It should be noted that these wolves crossed about 5 miles of open farm ground, passing near several homes and crossing a paved road, before killing these sheep in lambing sheds which are within 200 yards of the rancher's house.The wolves made no attempt to eat any of their kill. The second attack the following fall occurred despite the rancher following all the recommendations of the wolf experts to keep the wolves from attacking his sheep. In this attack the wolves ate the goat they killed, but made no attempt to consume any of the sheep they killed. It is likely that the wolves in the second attack are different ones than those in the first attack, since the first attack pair were trapped and fitted with transmitters that would send a signal to receivers given the ranchers to alert them when those wolves were in their neighborhood. They got no such transmissions.

    You may want to read a little about Mr. Mowat and how his so called research has been discredited before you cite his work. He responded to challenges of his "findings" by saying that " When the facts disagree with what you know to be the truth, F--- the facts."

    BTW- Yes its true that grazing rates per AUM (Animal Unit Month - 1 cow/calf pair or 5 sheep for one month) on Federal land are much much less than on private land. However the operating costs of running livestock on Federal land may make up the difference. Until I retired about 10 years ago, I managed about 300,000 acres of private timberland (not improved pasture),in NE Oregon/ SE Washington, that was also mostly all leased for grazing. Despite the fact that we charged a rate /AUM many times what the feds charged, I had several lessees that gave up their federal grazing permits to get one of our leases, and had numerous others on our waiting list who wanted to do likewise.
  6. There are only 2 approaches to arguing with a woman. Neither of them work.

    As for wolf depredations documenting slaughters versus hunting for food . . . granted this is a couple years old, but it happens. Considering the location, OMJ likely grumped them out of the country by now, tho . . . http://missoulian.com/article_5ff01772-938f-11de-9aca-001cc4c03286.html

    I can personally note that I don't see the numbers of moose in the Big Hole country that I used to & former hunting partners in my home state have observed thriving elk herds that are no longer "thriving." Could be coincidence, or it could be wolf depredation? When elk herds are in trouble, hunting quotas can be reduced or ended completely; this is a bit difficult to enforce when dealing with a wolf pack/packs. Fact of the matter is that where native wolf populations existed, their numbers were small, thus less impact and limited pack growth; following re-introduction, their numbers increased and unfortunately, wild ungulates & livestock have paid the price. I'm not a "shoot them all on sight" proponent, but I AM a "regulate them" proponent. Said regulation has been long in coming.
  7. Thanks for your post Bob. I found it interesting that the report you cite suggests there were a couple of different wolf groups involved in the attack, one collared and the other not. Since I believe that most wolf packs nucleate around an alpha female, I wonder whether the 'sport killing' attacks some mention are her way of demonstrating attack strategies to younger members - teaching by example as it were?

    In my earlier mention of Farley Mowat, I wasn't attempting to introduce his writing or research as gospel, but rather as a feeble attempt to lighten the mood here. It's been 20 years or more since I saw Never Cry Wolf and never read the book. I do remember vividly however, the scene when he fell through the ice covering a frozen lake, sinking quickly. Seemed an appropriate analogy for how parts of this thread have gone!

    (As a side note, one only has to look at news coverage from events over the past several days for more evidence of how little respect even our own would-be leaders have for the truth, with near complete amnesia for what they may have said or written earlier. Mr. Mowat's 'Fuck the facts' attitude you mentioned is certainly alive and well in contemporary America politics.)

    Bill Aubrey likes this.
  8. "Mr. Mowat's 'Fuck the facts' attitude you mentioned is certainly alive and well in contemporary America politics.)"

    So true, Kent.
  9. Amen to that!! It thrives in the news media also, apparently.
  10. Sadly, it is hard to separate politics, and especially parties, from "their" respective news outlets.
    Kent Lufkin likes this.
  11. That goes without saying, although in my earlier post I was actually referring to documents like unedited videotaped or recorded speeches and the Congressional voting record, not editorial (mis)interpretations.

  12. BTW, at 331 posts, this has got to be close to an all-time record for a thread here. I'm finally packed and all I need is ice for a week-long outing to northern Idaho and willing cutthroat with a group of long-time fishing friends. I'll check back in to see how much gas this topic still has in the tank.

    Surprise me!

  13. Have fun out there Kent. I'm sure the wolves won't go away quite that quickly.

  14. Hey, what about my website?! You can't leave now.

    Have fun Kent.
  15. I just watched "The Grey" last night and plan on electrical taping a pocket knife and broken mini airplane alcohol bottles to my knuckles when I head into wolf country like that badass Liam did.
    triploidjunkie likes this.
  16. I figure my PPK and a tux top should suffice...How do you say "shaken, not stirred", in canine?
  17. If you make it up here (any of you), in the winter, I can set you up with some of the ranchers here who will drive you around to get you set up to shoot wolves.. They are all over.
    TallFlyGuy likes this.
  18. "Facts" and "Science" are loose terms in an age of viral knowledge and corporatocracy. "Experts" are born (paid for) at necessity, speak their observations and have them instantly memed across the internet by thousands of slobbering supporters who will repeat anything they can quote as fact because it supports their underlying foundation of personal belief. I don't think we've seen a single peer-reviewed study in this entire thread. We've only seen basic empirical research, which is a good start for real science, but empirical observations do not establish fact and are only a small part of a process that makes something scientific knowledge.

    Science has been relegated to a profit tool, slightly less expensive than marketing. We don't live in an era of "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" or "truth for the sake of integrity". The simple truth is, unless you've personally verified a "fact" through your own use of good scientific method, you're taking someone elses word for it. You're believing in what you haven't seen personally. Which is faith. Not knowledge. So we need to take a good hard look at our preachers of scientific faith, and just like everything else, establish their motives and take what they have to say with a grain of salt. For whatever reason, the "experts" on the wolf subject seem to have a lot of ulterior motives.

    Separating truth from fiction in threads like this is nigh impossible. Resorting to ad hominem is shortsighted and supercilious if we consider how limited the actual knowledge on the subject is. It certainly does nothing but make us look like arrogant bastards (which I guess most of us are :rolleyes: ).

    In closing, I'll leave with a quote from an actual scientist -- "The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true."- Carl Sagan
    Jason Rolfe and dflett68 like this.

Share This Page