Wolves on the Westside?

zen leecher aka bill w

born to work, forced to fish
seems like a purely emotional statement, but let's assume it's true. doesn't your earlier argument imply that none of our fees should go to bull trout protection/restoration, since we can't fish for them and may not be able to do so in our life-times?
I'd like to think you are a pretty smart guy. Either you are politically naive, a pot stirrer, or able to read something into what I haven't written. WA State stands as good a chance of issuing tags for wolves as they do for voting for Romney in the 2012 election. What I'm saying is WA state goes the way of the westside voters. I don't feel the westside voters want a wolf season.

Smalma has stated in another post that what I called dollies are sea-going bull trout. I may be wrong but I assume they are legal for retention in the 2012 season. WA State will probably put as much $$ in habitat restoration for bull trout/dollies as they do for native steelhead.

I thought this was a wolf discussion and not fish related. I'm probably wrong. I may have to go back and read all 10 pages of the thread.

JMHPO (just my humble political opinion)

P.S. Now back to searching for undiscovered eastern WA trout streams and researching the local dove population.
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
i get what you're saying alex, and it seems obviously logical that wolves re-entering the ecosystem will cause ripples, if not waves. but to me, what your argument implies is that when we upset the order of things by eradicating a species, and the ecosystem adjusts to that new state, we have created a new normal that shouldn't be manipulated. but of course the new normal was created via manipulation, so what's sacred about protecting it from further manipulation? how can we justify the manipulation behind us, but decry any future manipulation? if we are going to cling to an ethic of any kind, it has to be bigger than simply serving what's expedient for the current generation of mankind, let alone a single demographic of that generation. the ideal of preserving and restoring wild things is all about that.
Well, certainly there's nothing sacred, but why compound the mistake over and over again? The question really needs to be; "what's the necessity of this reintroduction?". Seems to me that the same weird logic would work as well for the reintroduction of Pleistocene megafauna, say, the sabertooth tiger or dire wolf, assuming some geneticist could pull off a clone. I don't believe we need to hang on to an ethic that calls for recurring stupidity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Wolves aren't endangered in Alaska or Canada, but over the border, we've managed to thin the population out considerably from what it once was, and i truly don't see any problem with the results of that extirpation. What I'd like to see is a policy that says pretty much the ecosystem we have just needs to be supported, not massaged,which is what all this is. Preserve the wild, but recognize that it's currently well, wild!
 
You can still catch and bonk bull trout where there are healthy populations. Personally I don't, but you still can where the programs have worked. That isn't even a valid argument.

You can still shoot a cougar or black bear in the veeeeeeeeery off chance an agressive one comes at you. Worst case you pay a relativly small fine for shooting one out of season. If in the even more remote chance you encounter an agressive pack of wolves, you can shoot them as well. Worst case you get a judge in a bad mood and you are fined a 1/2 million dollars and spend a year in federal "pound you in the arse" prison, not to mention the civil fines. These animals should not be on the ESA list. Period. Our wolves are already f-ing extinct. I'm not saying go kill them or open a hunting season on them, but the penalty beyond 50% reasonable doubt for protecting yourself from one should make one think twice. Is the chance that you spend the rest of your life with a demolished sphincter worth enjoying a week backpacking and bushwackin?

It's total bullsheit that these animals are ESA protected. You can freaking buy them online...literally.
 
The question really needs to be; "what's the necessity of this reintroduction?". Seems to me that the same weird logic would work as well for the reintroduction of Pleistocene megafauna, say, the sabertooth tiger or dire wolf, assuming some geneticist could pull off a clone. I don't believe we need to hang on to an ethic that calls for recurring stupidity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Wolves aren't endangered in Alaska or Canada, but over the border, we've managed to thin the population out considerably from what it once was, and i truly don't see any problem with the results of that extirpation. What I'd like to see is a policy that says pretty much the ecosystem we have just needs to be supported, not massaged,which is what all this is. Preserve the wild, but recognize that it's currently well, wild!
Hey wait? are you talking about the hair brained efforts to reestablish wild salmonids in the NW? Seems like you could swap the word wolves for salmon, in this paragraph. Salmon aren't endangered in Canada or AK so why do we need 'em in the lower 48? I mean what the hell... why go to the expense of tearing out the Elwha Dams for salmon and steelhead? The rainbow in the upper river were doing fine without them... that's a "new" kind of wild, right?

I have been asked that by lots of folks in the past... why does the BPA spend 800 million + a year on salmon mitigation?

The reason society encourages the re-introduction (support and enhancement) of things like wild salmon and steelhead and wolves is that they all have value in a functional ecosystem. The west without wolves is like coastal rivers without steelhead. Why is that "stupid"?
 
Last time I checked, none of our neighboring states have or ever will declare salmon an emergency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/06/us-wolves-disaster-idUSTRE73502320110406

Salmon are not an apex predator like the wolf is. Lastly, The wolf introduced down here is not indigenous to this area. It is a larger species of Canadian wolf.

Hey wait? are you talking about the hair brained efforts to reestablish wild salmonids in the NW? Seems like you could swap the word wolves for salmon, in this paragraph. Salmon aren't endangered in Canada or AK so why do we need 'em in the lower 48? I mean what the hell... why go to the expense of tearing out the Elwha Dams for salmon and steelhead? The rainbow in the upper river were doing fine without them... that's a "new" kind of wild, right?

I have been asked that by lots of folks in the past... why does the BPA spend 800 million + a year on salmon mitigation?

The reason society encourages the re-introduction (support and enhancement) of things like wild salmon and steelhead and wolves is that they all have value in a functional ecosystem. The west without wolves is like coastal rivers without steelhead. Why is that "stupid"?
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
Hey wait? are you talking about the hair brained efforts to reestablish wild salmonids in the NW? Seems like you could swap the word wolves for salmon, in this paragraph. Salmon aren't endangered in Canada or AK so why do we need 'em in the lower 48? I mean what the hell... why go to the expense of tearing out the Elwha Dams for salmon and steelhead? The rainbow in the upper river were doing fine without them... that's a "new" kind of wild, right?

I have been asked that by lots of folks in the past... why does the BPA spend 800 million + a year on salmon mitigation?

The reason society encourages the re-introduction (support and enhancement) of things like wild salmon and steelhead and wolves is that they all have value in a functional ecosystem. The west without wolves is like coastal rivers without steelhead. Why is that "stupid"?
You're not thinking this through: No, you can't swap wolves for salmon (while wolf fur would look great on a parka, I don't think I'd eat one under most circumstances). First, Salmon haven't been completely absent from the rivers and streams here-everybody knows that! It's not that the species is gone, but that their numbers are diminished. So it's not anything like a reintroduction. This should be self evident. Second, as you know, salmon usually don't go round killing anything that moves, where packs of wolves in Montana and Idaho have been documented to go through a sheep herd like a hot knife through butter. Third, since salmon haven't been absent from the ecosystem at all, everybody in their habitat knows what it takes to deal with them

No ecosystem is "enhanced" or "diminished" by the addition or subtraction of anything: the ecosystem simply IS. What's going on is a value judgement placed upon the system by-in this case-a small but very noisy bunch of "activists", who've managed to use the ESA to further their demands. Everywhere man tries to "enhance" the ecosystem, he screws it up

You know as well as I do, that the BPA spends so much money on salmon mitigation because it was required to by some idiot in a black robe, who was NEVER satisfied with anything that all the agencies involved, in coordination with the tribes involved, came up with to satisfy his demands! This man was completely unreasonable, and good riddance that he's retired. Reasonable solutions for supporting salmon were presented to him every time this came to court, but he trashed each and every one of them.

It's a very important point that everyone understand the wolf is now NOT NATIVE to the ecosystem, nor has it been for a century.
 
50 years ago a hunter,rancher would of put a bullet in any wolf and left it for rot, just like they do for coyotes today. Nobody would have noticed, cared or given a shit. IMO this is natural balance.

We do the same thing today, there just USFWS flying around in helicopters thinning out the pack.... and somewhere along the line we now call this "Wildlife Management". Has it really improved?
 
What's going on is a value judgement placed upon the system by-in this case-a small but very noisy bunch of "activists", who've managed to use the ESA to further their demands.
I think this is another highly emotional, but untrue, statement.

The ESA is a very popular law. Reintroductions of locally extirpated species is a fundamental management practice used for many species of plants and animals managed under the law (think of the success of the Golden Paintbrush here in Washington and the California Condor in the SW US). Many runs of steelhead and salmon also have been extirpated from rivers/streams along the west coast; many others would have been, if not for expensive mitigation efforts.

The noisy "activists" seem mostly to be on the side of re-extirpation of the successful human-assisted (eg, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) and naturally-occurring (eg, Washington) returning wolves. Most of us who favor a management plan for wolves, which returns them to their historical place as an apex predator and keystone species, do so in quiet admiration of both the wolves and the state/federal wildlife managers for their remarkable resilience in the face of vituperative and lethal opposition.

An irrational fear of wolves (and snakes and spiders) runs deep in the human psyche, however, and it is not something that is going to go away any time soon.

D