NFR: And now wolves in the Teanaway drainage

dryflylarry

"Chasing Riseforms"
Well, I don't believe wolves kill for the fun of it. They kill to eat for khrist sake. There were no wolves in the pictures of the carcasses that were posted on here because there were humans nearby. Quite simple to me. I'm sure they wandered back to feed on the carcasses later. Man is probably the only thing that kills for the fun of it, such as back in the day in shooting buffalo from trains. I think I saw a sports program some time ago where guys were shooting birds for fun. I think it may have been down in Argentina. It wouldn't surprise me to see a small cattle rancher lose some stock in the Teanaway in the future. You can bet they'll be targeting the wolves then.
 

gt

Active Member
No hunting allowed in ONP just like Yellowstone. So introduce wolves their numbers will escalate and kill 80% of the elk herd and moose just like in Yellowstone and start spreading to other parts of the state. How can you introduce a predator like the wolf with NO management plan??

geez, the times is a right leaning news rag that used to be counterbalance by the PI. 80% of the elk herd in yellowstone has been killed by wolves??? that is truely amazing, where the link so i can read it in detail??
 

Ed Call

Well-Known Member
Yes they can. If you go back and read my posts, I'm simply stating that they usually do become a problem. If they do, we can start issuing tags to control them. I also stated that I hope it doesn't come to that, but the evidence shows that typically they do. Again, I could care less.

That being said, I will admit that I don't know that they were "dumped" into the system. However that being said, when or where have the wolves ever shown up anywhere where they were not a result of a transplant.

I think, whether you want to believe it or not, that you and I agree. Hooray for the wolves! If they become a problem, they'll have to be dealt with - not saying eradicated. Please, (meant sincerely) don't lump me in with those who want to "kill them all". Although I do understand where they are coming from. A person can sympathize with where they are coming from and still disagree. I think it's called being a "grown up". <- Not aimed at you by the way.
I agree, at least mostly. I think nature reclaiming a foothold is great. What that evolves to is yet to be seen.

OK wolf haters (aka livestock and big game lovers), how many of you are going to participate in this thinly-veiled bestiality event at this local goat brothel? http://goatolympics.org/

'Fess up!
Lugan is actually looking for a rideshare.


When can we talk about cougars again? That was a more visually-enticing topic IMO.
Only if you include pictures, lots of pictures.

Well, I don't believe wolves kill for the fun of it. They kill to eat for khrist sake. There were no wolves in the pictures of the carcasses that were posted on here because there were humans nearby. Quite simple to me. I'm sure they wandered back to feed on the carcasses later. Man is probably the only thing that kills for the fun of it, such as back in the day in shooting buffalo from trains. I think I saw a sports program some time ago where guys were shooting birds for fun. I think it may have been down in Argentina. It wouldn't surprise me to see a small cattle rancher lose some stock in the Teanaway in the future. You can bet they'll be targeting the wolves then.
Management programs often spring up, officially or not. As the cattle are targeted and fall to the wolves I'm sure there will be wolves in the crosshairs. Many animals kill, eat some, then retreat. Some bury their kill, bears have been known to do this frequently. Others take a rest in a position of overlook where their kill can still be monitored and defended.

We saw a bison kill in Yellowstone, right next to a long and somewhat isolated boardwalk trail. Adventure over here kids, we got the F out of there and reported the kill to the next Ranger we saw. Evidence around the kill did not suggest wolves though, so yet again I drift off topic.
 

bennysbuddy

the sultan of swing
Homogenous. My point is that to ever say liberals believe...fill in the blank and think tht the whole group thinks alike is incorrect. The one thing that "liberals" do better than any other group is disagree. It's not a religion. It's a loose partnership of people for political gain.

For the record, I did not call you a knuckledragger. No one is calling you names or belittling you here, just discussing.

Go Red Sox,
cds
I never said anyone said I was a Knuckle dragger,I know my position on the social totem pole, that said I will admit to enjoying playing the devils advocate & i'm not a liberal even thou I enjoy a spirited argument.
 

Porter

Active Member
Wolves and domestic dogs are from common ancestors. Canines are highly mutatable. Without going into too much detail, SINEC_Cf DNA gets copied into RNA which then gets copied back into DNA then that DNA then sticks itself back into the dog genome. If it lands in the right spot, it's instant noticable mutation. If I am not mistaken canines have the highest rate of mutation of all carnivores. It's impossible to trace the origin of the first domestic dogs from fossil records since a new breed from a single bitch could be made in a single litter if you hit the mutation lottery. IE the first canine pair ever to exist on earth could have had a first litter of completly different looking breeds.

It doesnt matter if the cle-elum wolves are re-introduced or from a different stock that is not native. They will quickly change into their own stock that is suited for that area in a few generations anyway. Look at the difference between a Whidbey Island and Juanita coyotes. They look like two different animals.

Also, forget who the poster was, but wolves will kill in mass and leave uneaten carcases. It's the internal organs that they are after. That is where the most nutrition that they need is found.

Yes, it's called carrion....and it to is part of nature and serves a purpose.
 

ribka

Active Member
geez, the times is a right leaning news rag that used to be counterbalance by the PI. 80% of the elk herd in yellowstone has been killed by wolves??? that is truely amazing, where the link so i can read it in detail??


http://explorethebitterroot.com/yellowstone-elk-herd-down-70-since-wolf-introduction



From the extremely right wing rag Bush Cheny Palin tourist site Explore the Bitteroot

Other studies put the herd down to 80%

Yes wolves do kill in mass and leave carcasses. If you walk or fish away from parking lots you might witness this. Wolves they do not bury their prey like a bear or cat.

Porter :When the tribes net salmon and steelhead and throw the rotting carcasses in the ditch on the Yak reservation because they do not get around to processiing them it is considered carrion and serves a purpose I guess. The flies need to eat too
 

gt

Active Member
http://explorethebitterroot.com/yellowstone-elk-herd-down-70-since-wolf-introduction



From the extremely right wing rag Bush Cheny Palin tourist site Explore the Bitteroot

Other studies put the herd down to 80%

here is the nub of this questionable set of numbers:

"...The well documented decline of the Bitterroot elk herd is costing the Bitterroot Valley millions of dollars in lost revenue. Big game hunting brings in a reported $33 million annually to the Bitterroot Valley. Hunter numbers declined about 36% in 2010 from 2009 at the Darby Check Station. That is a potential loss to the local economy of about $10 million. Can we really afford economic losses like this in an area with minimal economic opportunities..."

what is not mentioned is that trying to balance elk herd size with carrying capacity of the land along with wolf pack size and availability of food source. there is no doubt that the size of the elk herds in yellowstone had upset the natural balance of the park. wolf packs are reducing those numbers, i still question the number however given the above quote, and what all of us are seeing is stream side vegatation coming back and fewer elk to be seen. apparently the complacent elk have been harvested and those remaining have learned the lesson that there is an apex predator around looking for dinner. thats how all of this works.
 
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.
 

Derek Young

Emerging Rivers Guide Services
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.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
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.

Sg
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
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.
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.
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
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.
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.
 

Latest posts