Wolves on the Westside?

ribka

Active Member
#31
You're wasting your time. Now if we could get some pike minnow, seal, cormorant, northern pike and smallmouth hatcheries in this state that would make fishing for tout, salmon and steelhead more interesting and challenging.

One of the reasons that hunters "whine" is the fact that hunters over the last several decades have spent countless hours and amounts of money for habitat restoration and conservation for the elk herds across the western states. Through the efforts of groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, elk herds and habitat have flourished only to be decimated by the reintroduction of wolves. The elk are a staple for the wolves. To sum it up, the hunters are upset because even with all their conservation work they had no say and to a major extent still do not with respects to wolf management.

I'm not trying to get into an argument here, just showing a different viewpoint from one who has personally spent alot of time out in the woods helping collar elk and collecting data on herds for management studies. This is a controversial topic topic for all sides involved and a healthy and friendly debate of the facts is always good.
 
#33
You're wasting your time. Now if we could get some pike minnow, seal, cormorant, northern pike and smallmouth hatcheries in this state that would make fishing for tout, salmon and steelhead more interesting and challenging.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? ;)

Somebody please convince WDFW that there should be a bounty on bullfrogs. I could almost make a living at frog gigging.
 
#35
Imagine the analogies in fly fishing, and you can see how ridiculous it is.
Like putting hatchery steelhead in the rivers to please a particular group and ignoring another?

I should add I do not believe the only good wolf is a dead wolf, but can understand the concerns of ranchers and the like.
 

scottr

Active Member
#36
A wolf on the MF Snoq is a long shot, but not improbable under the circumstances mentioned - the wildfire on the east side. At the rate wolves are becoming re-established in WA, it won't be long before a bonafide pack populates the west side. Cool. Wild lands need more apex predators.

Sg
Why is it a long shot when these animals can travel dozens of miles a day and there is a large pack just over the crest of the cascades? The state has confirmed 8 packs (mind you this has just happened in the last four years) and officially acknowledge that there there may be up to 5 more packs in the state. I'd say it is a much of long shot as Grizzlies in the North Cascades.

Wild lands need more apex predators
BTW I don't disagree with this sentiment. I am certainly not in the see it shoot it crowd but do think that they need to be managed like all other wildlife.
 
#38
Imagine the analogies in fly fishing, and you can see how ridiculous it is.

Well we should ban fishing from all waters to "restore the natural balance of things" it seems we've had a detrimental effect of making salmon more spooky for bears, trout more wary for eagles and otters.

It's difficult to explain to non-hunters but if you rented your fancy vacation home out to a bunch of crack heads for 15 years unchecked, what condition do you think your home would be in? That pretty much sums up to what the wolves have done to public lands in W. Montana. Now we're going to do some cleaning.
 
#39
Wolves are a controversial species because their reintroduction to the west was done for altruistic reasons with one set of stake holders (environmentalists) without considering the impacts on other stake holders (e.g. Ranchers & hunters).
This is a factually inaccurate assessment of the wolf reintroduction effort. There was nothing "altruistic" about wolf reintroduction. A tremendous amount of input was received from ALL stakeholders (including ranchers and hunters) before reintroduction was begun, and plans were in place for mitigation for prospective financial losses to ranchers before reintroduction began. In any event, I believe the wolves in Washington are not the descendants of wolves reintroduced into Yellowstone and Idaho, but rather are natural migrants from Canada. They are managed as a protected species under laws that are generally viewed as important for management of our natural resources.

D
 

Kent Lufkin

Remember when you could remember everything?
#42
One of the reasons that hunters "whine" is the fact that hunters over the last several decades have spent countless hours and amounts of money for habitat restoration and conservation for the elk herds across the western states. Through the efforts of groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, elk herds and habitat have flourished only to be decimated by the reintroduction of wolves. The elk are a staple for the wolves. To sum it up, the hunters are upset because even with all their conservation work they had no say and to a major extent still do not with respects to wolf management.
Somehow wolves and elk managed to co-exist for hundreds of thousands of years before the heavy hand of man began to 'improve' things. Our appreciation of their delicate interrelationship is still not fully understood. In nearly all of mankind's efforts to 'manage' the natural order to our own ends, our understanding of the interconnectedness of species and their environment is limited as is our ability to understand how bad outcomes can be a direct result our actions. When we simplistically 'manage' a natural resource like wolves without a clear and full understanding of the consequences, we risk creating other problems that may indeed be greater than the ones we were attempting to solve.

I get that hunters kill elk and that more elk means easier hunting. I also understand that elk hunters are willing to influence greater numbers of elk and thus contribute their time and money to that end. But the problem with 'conservation' efforts devoted to benefiting a single species is that the goal produces a limited and simplistic result: in this case, an increase in the number of elk. Yet such efforts almost always come with unintended adverse consequences.

As a slightly oversimplified example, when wolves were eradicated from the Yellowstone basin, the immediate consequence was a dramatic increase in elk populations with the elimination of their apex predator. Not a bad outcome if you're an elk hunter.

But the unintended consequence was that since elk tend to prefer tender young shoots from alders, aspens and other trees and bushes, their increasing numbers quickly wiped out young trees resulting in large swaths of dead tree trunks and branches. Since live tree roots retain water, their loss meant increased soil erosion during rains and runoff, washing away the thin layer of topsoil and vastly reducing the chances that any plants would ever grow in those areas again. The dried, dead trunks and limbs of elk-killed trees and brush became fuel for lightning-sparked wildfires.

If your goal is to have large herds of elk available for an easy kill every fall and you see wolves as standing between you and that end, then landslides, decimated forests and fires might be a small price to pay, right?

K
 
#44
The problem here is not the sport of hunting. The real issue is the invention of the gun. Guns made the taking of prey (or life) much easier than mankind has ever experienced in nature. Hunters have no respect for the animals they take or the environment in which they live. I say this because anyone can shoot an elk 500 yards away without having to break a sweat. All they care about is the KILL. If a hunter has to compete with another predator they want to eliminate the competition. When real hunters had nothing to use but their brain to hunt, they came up with very clever ways to catch prey: the bow and arrow, spears, hell even poisonous blow darts. More importantly you had to have a certain level of respect for nature otherwise you simply did not eat. If hunters are so good at their craft then why do they not exclusively use bows? Any moron can shoot something dead; it does not take a genius to aim and fire a rifle. But it would be too much work having to track, give chase, and catch your prey if you catch anything at all. Hell every person I have meet who hunts looks like they would get winded just having to walk to their mail box. Same comparison as fly vs gear anglers. Any moron can chuck gear and effortlessly catch fish. I've gone years fly-fishing and haven't even begun to scratch the surface. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against hunting. I have even thought about taking it up. Just if I take it up I will use a bow and keep a .44 in case I run into a bear or wolf. jmho
 
#45
Somehow wolves and elk managed to co-exist for hundreds of thousands of years before the heavy hand of man began to 'improve' things. Our appreciation of their delicate interrelationship is still not fully understood. In nearly all of mankind's efforts to 'manage' the natural order to our own ends, our understanding of the interconnectedness of species and their environment is limited as is our ability to understand how bad outcomes can be a direct result our actions. When we simplistically 'manage' a natural resource like wolves without a clear and full understanding of the consequences, we risk creating other problems that may indeed be greater than the ones we were attempting to solve.

I get that hunters kill elk and that more elk means easier hunting. I also understand that elk hunters are willing to influence greater numbers of elk and thus contribute their time and money to that end. But the problem with 'conservation' efforts devoted to benefiting a single species is that the goal produces a limited and simplistic result: in this case, an increase in the number of elk. Yet such efforts almost always come with unintended adverse consequences.

As a slightly oversimplified example, when wolves were eradicated from the Yellowstone basin, the immediate consequence was a dramatic increase in elk populations with the elimination of their apex predator. Not a bad outcome if you're an elk hunter.

But the unintended consequence was that since elk tend to prefer tender young shoots from alders, aspens and other trees and bushes, their increasing numbers quickly wiped out young trees resulting in large swaths of dead tree trunks and branches. Since live tree roots retain water, their loss meant increased soil erosion during rains and runoff, washing away the thin layer of topsoil and vastly reducing the chances that any plants would ever grow in those areas again. The dried, dead trunks and limbs of elk-killed trees and brush became fuel for lightning-sparked wildfires.

If your goal is to have large herds of elk available for an easy kill every fall and you see wolves as standing between you and that end, then landslides, decimated forests and fires might be a small price to pay, right?

K
Agree to most of what your saying but...a natural migration of wolves is one thing a forced re-introduction is another, especially when it was largely financed by the Pittman-Robertsen act. Where hunters have been the top 3 supporters of this tax for over 70 years. I haven't tried wolf yet, but I imagine it's pretty hard to choke down.

Secondly, the YNP experiment resulted in the highest concentration of wolves in the world for a 2 million acre range... mainly to tackle (the weak and starving) worlds largest free roaming elk herd. They were very successful and apparently most of the elk were weak and starving because it took down a herd measuring 20K+ to less than 4K today. Now it that happened to your salmon, steelhead, trout stream I think you'd be pissed.

Thirdly, please try and burn a dead aspen tree and tell me how that works out for you. The pine bettle has done more damage to erosion in forested areas than any ungulate ever will.

The day I see a "wolf wintering range" financed by wolf lovers is the day I will start drinking your water.