Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Call of the wild

11K views 171 replies 40 participants last post by  Krusty 
#1 ·
You may have read we had a wolf kill in Number 2 Canyon in Wenatchee day-before-yesterday. A wolf was observed near the Wenatchee Rifle & Revolver club, stalking and bringing down a deer. Somebody called the sheriff's office or the Wenatchee cops, (don't recall which) for some weird reason. When the deputy arrived, he found the deer not yet dead, and the wolf nearby. So what's gomer do? He shoots the deer and throws the carcass in the patrol car and hauls it off. WTF??? You'd think people here might have a clue about what goes on outside the city limits, but maybe this guy was from "elsewhere". So the hungry wolf's deprived of it's hard-earned dinner, and is forced to expend more energy on hunting down and killing something else.... Like a neighborhood dog, cat, or small human. The cop gets an "attaboy, dipshit" from me.
 
#78 ·
Wolves will only attack you is you are messing with their young or you are in the way of what they are eating, or the big one. They are rabid.

But to pull down a child to eat. They would never do that with all the other wild animals out there. They really don't like to be around MAN.

How come nobody put out any popcorn with this subject.
 
#79 ·
Wolves will only attack you is you are messing with their young or you are in the way of what they are eating, or the big one. They are rabid.

But to pull down a child to eat. They would never do that with all the other wild animals out there. They really don't like to be around MAN.

How come nobody put out any popcorn with this subject.
We were waiting for you to bring the popcorn, Old Man. We hear there's no popcorn tax in Montana.
 
#80 ·
One thing I'd like to know from the wolf experts or should I say "opinion holders" is how many wolves have you seen in the wild? The Discovery channel, zoos, petting or otherwise, and Yellowstone Park do not count. I've seen 5 and one had a rifle pointed at it. My intention was turning it into a rug.

My guess is a lot of the "opinion holders" have never seen a live wolf.
 
#82 ·
One thing I'd like to know from the wolf experts or should I say "opinion holders" is how many wolves have you seen in the wild? The Discovery channel, zoos, petting or otherwise, and Yellowstone Park do not count. I've seen 5 and one had a rifle pointed at it. My intention was turning it into a rug.

My guess is a lot of the "opinion holders" have never seen a live wolf.
Oh-oh, I'm thinking somebody has been watching "The Grey" one too many times (once is one too many times)!

I've seen five, all in Alaska. Four together that trotted within 10 feet of me while I sat in the brush, and one at a distance of about 75 yards. Magnificent animals.

I found that encountering cow moose with their young a whole lot more worrisome than wolves....I think most natives would say the same. Nobody I met in my travels in Alaska, the Yukon Territory, orr northern BC worried about wolves at all...though they do pay attention to bears and moose.
 
#85 ·
To add a little Canadian perspective to this.......we don't carry guns here, unless you are a hunter with permit/license etc. We have lots of wolves, its really nice to go to sleep and hear wolves howling, they also happen to be beautiful, intelligent animals. I see them sometimes (I've seen maybe 20 in total), and relish it every time. I still often sleep outside when camping by a lake in the bush. Wolves don't hurt people, that thought/statement is slightly embarrassing. How many people have been hurt by wolves in the last 10yrs? now compare that to dogs in town.....see? slightly embarrassing.

Many of our ecosystems that still sustain wolves are almost identical to those in Washington, if ours can sustain wolves happily then yours can too...without throwing it all out of whack when they are introduced. Of course there will be a settling in period, all the ungulates will be on edge, and there will be less of them.

Also the thought of needing to carry guns in the bush is slightly silly as well, aside from the odd grizzly/black bear attack, our animals are pretty mellow, don't hit their babies and everything is normally fine. Call me weird but the fact that we have real animals that might hurt you is what makes our bush so much more appealing, a gun 'just for protection' just seems like it takes the 'interesting' out of the bush.

Anyways, we have wolves, and its great, I for one am pretty happy that washington also has wolves.
 
G
#92 ·
To add a little Canadian perspective to this.......we don't carry guns here, unless you are a hunter with permit/license etc. We have lots of wolves, its really nice to go to sleep and hear wolves howling, they also happen to be beautiful, intelligent animals. I see them sometimes (I've seen maybe 20 in total), and relish it every time. I still often sleep outside when camping by a lake in the bush. Wolves don't hurt people, that thought/statement is slightly embarrassing. How many people have been hurt by wolves in the last 10yrs? now compare that to dogs in town.....see? slightly embarrassing.

Many of our ecosystems that still sustain wolves are almost identical to those in Washington, if ours can sustain wolves happily then yours can too...without throwing it all out of whack when they are introduced. Of course there will be a settling in period, all the ungulates will be on edge, and there will be less of them.

Also the thought of needing to carry guns in the bush is slightly silly as well, aside from the odd grizzly/black bear attack, our animals are pretty mellow, don't hit their babies and everything is normally fine. Call me weird but the fact that we have real animals that might hurt you is what makes our bush so much more appealing, a gun 'just for protection' just seems like it takes the 'interesting' out of the bush.

Anyways, we have wolves, and its great, I for one am pretty happy that washington also has wolves.
Dude , can you hook me up with whatever you are smokin
 
#86 ·
Jonnytutu, exactly the sentiments I heard everywhere up there....and if it's one thing that pisses Canadians off is when American tourists get sloppy with campfood storage (or even worse, feeds bears from a vehicle) and it ends in the needless death of one of your animals.

By far and away, the worst thing I experienced were your mosquitos!
 
This post has been deleted
#91 ·
Many americans carry guns in the woods to feel tough. They are the same guys with the 25 elk stickers (my favorite is the one with the pic of the bull and the word "testosterone" under it) on their jacked up compensator rig and in many cases beer gut to match thus assuring they could never get far fromthe road to even see a predator. Jonny has it about right..
LOL. The new age american male. Tough as nails.... fingernails that is.
 
#89 ·
Spent 6.5 hours yesterday clearing junk growth from some really steep grasslands that the deciduous were starting to overcome.Mule deer and Elk winter range. Finished and everyone had a tick picking party, sort of look like those pictures of Gorillas grooming each other. Only thing in the world that I hate is ticks, cannot think of any reason for their existence.
 
This post has been deleted
#95 ·
No, guns good, wolves probably okay too, not sure as i personally don't have much experience with them.
I DO have experience with wolves, having encountered them more than once both in the lower 48 and elsewhere. Singularly, they aren't much of an issue, but pack them up, get them hungry, and they're bad news with a decent ability to solve problems and cooperate. They also can mate with Eastern Coyotes, producing a hybrid. These hybrids were implicated in the attack and killing of a young Canadian singer two years ago in Ontario. They've also attacked and killed people in Alaska.
 
#99 ·
Looks like wolves in small numbers may have been here all along. Additionally, wolves have not been introduced into WA state. They have been migrating here of their own volition, suggesting that the habitat is naturally supportive. Read on to learn of the numerous (i.e. both of them) wolf-caused human fatalities in the last 60 years.

" Wolves were once common throughout most of Washington, but declined rapidly from being aggressively killed during the expansion of ranching and farming between 1850 and 1900. Wolves were eliminated as a breeding species from the state by the 1930s, although infrequent reports of animals continued in the following decades, suggesting that small numbers of individuals continued to disperse into Washington from neighboring states and British Columbia."

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk HD
 
#101 ·
Looks like wolves in small numbers may have been here all along. Additionally, wolves have not been introduced into WA state. They have been migrating here of their own volition, suggesting that the habitat is naturally supportive.
Same stance was taken in my home state of MI. Supposedly 5 crossed Lake Superiors ice from Isle Royal ..and that was their new era foot hold.

Maye it's true / maybe not.. but there can be no argument about the thousands of man hours, State & Federal, that were invested into them [read 'baby-sat'] Doubtfull they'd have ever survived, pro-created, and flourish with out it.
 
G
#104 ·
Well, that's a good thing. I am tired of feeding expensive cats to coyotes around here. We have started picking up "lost/found" cats since they are much cheaper.

I wish the coyotes around my place would eat the cat that shits in my garden and sits on my trucks hood every nite.
 
#109 ·
Alex, I don't think anyone who studies the problem of invasive species would accept your definition. Local extirpation is not the same as extinction. A relatively few generations does not provide time for the ecosystem to evolve sufficiently for the returning species to have the same relative role as an introduced alien species might. Reintroduction is an ecological management tool used for many species in many habitats and doesn't even approach the definition of 'invasion.'
As a fisheries biologist who works with invasive species, all I have to say is "BINGO!"
 
#110 ·
Northern Pike minnows aka squaw fish in the Columbia are as invasive as wolves in the NW, but the deal with the Pike minnow is they have an unlimited harvest, wolves get special protection from "those who know best". In fact we pay to harvest a native fish because of it's impact on salmon smolt to a fishery A pike minnow, like the wolf is doing what it was designed to do..eat, I don't think they have a preference as to what they eat. The difference is one is a nuisance (pike minnow) and one is perceived to enhance the wilderness experience (wolf).

The issue at hand is there's not one square foot of this country in the lower 48 that doesn't have a modern human imprint, so the theory of keeping wolves here for an enhanced natural experience is a state of mind and what I find asinine. In my opinion, why should a northern pike minnow who is native to the NW be eradicated from it's native water to preserve salmon but a re-introduced wolf eating native game herds that were preserved by several generations of hunters be welcomed? Oxymoron? If you disagree, get out a map and count how many wolf wintering ranges that are paid for by wolf supporters... keep counting.

Media has as much if not more to do with this situation to shape peoples minds about wolves. Just today there was an article about an 18yr old bull elk in Yellowstone that got killed by a pack of wolves. The biologist or idealist would say, see wolves have no impact on elk because he lived for 18yrs among wolves. The realist would say the only way that bull elk lived that long is because he lived in and around Mammoth Hot Springs where people are present year around. I'll leave that to the biologist here.

What I do know to be true is 16,500 elk from the Yellowstone herd didn't have the ancesterol gene to defend themselves from the introduction of wolves, perhaps the smart elk moved to Gardiner or Mammoth to take up residence. What I believe is if you feed a tank full of Northern Pike Minnows salmon smolt is they're going to eat and eat good for a short time... then what do they eat?
 
#111 ·
I just ran into a small pack of wolves in the upper part of the Manastash this past weekend.

I have brought up the pike minnow/ wolf analogy in the past.
If it does not individually impact people (non hunting fly fisherman) they do not care.

Would like to see the reaction if WA WDFW started a pike minnow, cormorant, sea lion stocking program here in the state and started shutting down fisheries to strive for a more natural method of fisheries management.
 
#112 ·
Trustfunder: provide me THE BIOLOGICAL definition of an invasive species, and let's see if wolf fits that definition. This should wrap up the debate rather quickly.

P.S. Wikipedia doesn't count.

Aww forget it.....here:

Non-native species (aka non-indigenous, foreign, exotic, alien, introduced, transplanted, pest, nuisance) - a species, subspecies, or lower taxon introduced outside its normal geographic distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagule of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce

Invasive species - a non-native species whose establishment and spread threaten ecosystems, habitats or species with economic and/or environmental harm
 
G
#113 ·
Trustfunder: provide me THE BIOLOGICAL definition of an invasive species, and let's see if wolf fits that definition. This should wrap up the debate rather quickly.

P.S. Wikipedia doesn't count.

Aww forget it.....here:

Non-native species (aka non-indigenous, foreign, exotic, alien, introduced, transplanted, pest, nuisance) - a species, subspecies, or lower taxon introduced outside its normal geographic distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagule of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce

Invasive species - a non-native species whose establishment and spread threaten ecosystems, habitats or species with economic and/or environmental harm
lets see, after reading this info, humans are a invasive species and therefore should be eliminated.. (note to self , need to put this on my things to do list)
 
G
#116 ·
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 .
 
#119 ·
"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.
 
#120 ·
"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!
 
#121 ·
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).
 
#122 ·
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?
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!
 
This post has been deleted
#153 ·
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.
Maybe better you don't use "text-talk". Makes you come off a little less than you probably are. I don't think anyone here fears wildlife, and am not sure where that came from unless it's from city-dwellers. There was an article in one of the San Francisco papers several decades ago in which children from Oakland believed chocolate milk came from chocolate cows, but that's Oakland, the city that brought us Ebonics. I do like the "truck hunters" reference though, having encountered them on occasion. They're fun to watch. As far as the forest being a dangerous place though, I wonder if you recall a guy named Timothy Treadwell?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top