Wolves on the Westside?

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

  1. Posters who've suggested or insinuated that WA introduced wolves to the state and or that WA has no plan for managing wolves simply undermine their own credibility with their uninformed posts. If that matters . . .
    Bill Aubrey and dflett68 like this.
  2. Jeez, Freestone, let's not muddy the waters with reality!

  3. Taking money from hunting and fishing license fees and using it on non game species is like Taxation without Representation. We are told that it is going to be used to benefit us (those who actually hunt and fish) and then it is diverted somewhere else. The fees keep going up every year, yet the quality of the fishing and hunting experience keeps going down and we have no say. I really don't care what YOU believe, but I won't continue to support an organization that doesn't provide ME with a return on my investment.

  4. I don't really think that means much...the WDFW will decide whatever they want. Despite a great deal of argument from citizens, they still decided to put a "Target" on target shooting on WDFW land, making it a crime to leave a shell casing behind. I don't put much trust in the agency.
  5. I gather then you've put your money where your mouth is and won't be buying a hunting or fishing license since to do so would support an organization you disapprove of?

    Bill Aubrey likes this.

  6. I sorta feel this way too and even people who only fish should feel the same. We expect our license funds be used for maintaining hunting and fishing opportunities. In this case they are being used to build a wolf population in WA state. The funds will also be used to control and fix wolf damages and reduce the funds available for the above said hunting and fishing opportunities and probably warden salaries.

    To put this in a way a fisherman might understand, remember the 2006 or so Lake Washington sockeye season. That season almost didn't happen because WDFW didn't have the funds to pay salaries for the wardens to monitor the fishery. They got a special allocation from the state to allow the fishery to happen. Now we have an additional drain on those funds to introduce, manage and control wolves.

    I will also add that I don't see evidence of the non-hunting/fishing pro wolf public adding any introduction/management monies to the mix.

  7. Last time I checked, it was the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, not the 5shot Department of Fish and Wildlife. As Freestone pointed out, their mission is pretty varied.

  8. i'm a little sympathetic with your comments zen, but the other thought i had was this: won't wolves become a game species at some point in the future once they are established? in most places we cannot currently target or keep a bull trout, but we don't have a problem with our fees going to resuscitate that species, do we? we know we used to be able to fish for them, they got scarce, and now we can't. someday, if the programs work and people like us comply, they will be at fish-able populations again and become a viable angling target. but for now, we pay to fund the effort to bring them back without having the opportunity to enjoy them at present. this seems like a valid use of our funds, and goes to our goals as anglers. why wouldn't the same logic apply to a wolf population? surely when there are plenty of them they will become a viable game target, like a coyote or a black bear. is that a bad assumption?
    Bill Aubrey likes this.
  9. Certainly a salient point, but the bottom line is, the wolf is-now-an invasive species. Yes, they were once part of the landscape, but they were removed. Doesn't matter how they were removed, the fact remains. Now, almost a century later, you want to call them a native species? That seems a stretch to me. One hundred generations of the rest of the creatures of the forest haven't been pressured by a wolf pack, and will need time to relearn their escape strategies. All this does, is place added pressure on them. Will they eventually adapt? Almost certainly. Will there eventually be a season? Well, not if the wolf-huggers have their way; just look at the way they treated the guy who took the first legal wolf in Idaho last year.
  10. What Freestone said is true, at least most of it.
    I used to work up the Twisp river doing some logging.
    The deer were thick.
    The log truck drivers were killing dozens per day and still no end to all the deer.
    Well, the FS and WDFW got together and planted a wolf pair and within a couple of years no more deer getting in the way of the log trucks.
    Signs posted in all the camp ground warning the campers to keep guards posted at nite if you slept in tents.
    No deer tracks in the deer trails just wolf tracks.
    This was back in 1985, I'm not kidding.
  11. 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.
    Jason Rolfe and Bill Aubrey like this.
  12. Wolves will become a WA state game species the same day tags become available for grizzly bears.
  13. 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?
  14. Awesome thread. Lots of information and misinformation from both sides, as well as a few holier than thou folks.

    In regards to the negative effects on the Yellowstone due to lack of wolves, there was a solution that most of the nation employed to combat the erosion. The game herds began to increase with no apex predator in their system. The majority of the nation outside of the parks allows hunting, an introduction of an apex predator. There is very little decimation of soil holding fauna in areas where hunters are allowed to hunt, they help maintain the checks and balances needed. The Yellowstone did not have an apex predator in sufficient numbers to combat the growing population of ungulates, therefore the ungulates caused negative effects. There are areas in the state where over grazing and compacting of land from herbivores has caused issues, but these are from sheep and cattle as opposed to deer and elk. The Clockum is a wonderful example. Sheep and cattle herds have destroyed the Tarpiscan drainage and with it took fish breeding grounds away. Had there been a proper check and balance system implemented after the eradication of the wolves in Yellowstone this issue would be minimal to non existent. I cannot however dispute the fact that wolves have in part helped the raptor population, they have. There are positives and negatives.

    The hunting community is up in arms, as stated before, because of the apparent waste of time and money that was poured into the management of the ungulates after the wolf eradication. One thing the wolf plan didnt take into account is the complete decimation of the ungulates. They re-introduced an apex predator to herds that have never experienced one like this. I dont see anywhere in the plan where they estimated the reduction in ungulate population to be near this magnitude. This has destroyed 20+ years of management by public and private organizations. In my opinion, minimal concern was given to the hunters during introduction. There were many meetings all over WA state where hunters were allowed to come and voice their opinion, and many did. Those opinions fell on deaf ears as I can not think of one legitimate hunter concern that was answered with a rule or law or any sort of plausible plan or explanation.

    We also come to the issue of non natural introduction. First off, the Wolf coming from Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, etc. is not the native wolf species. It is a genetically separate Wolf from Canada. This Wolf is slightly larger than the native Wolf, having been adapted to prey on Moose and Caribou as opposed to Deer and Elk. This non native species actually pushed the remaining few native Wolf populations into extinction. A native Wolf pack in Idaho existed until this introduction. This is comparable to hatchery fish being released into native streams and muddling with the wild population. These wolves are the ones in the NE corner of the state. Supposedly the pack in the Methow and Teanaway are natives from BC migrating down. I find this implausible. Why would these wolves all of a sudden begin migrating down now? What has changed recently that has pushed these Wolves south? The wolves have been eradicated in WA for nearly 100 years and all of a sudden they are just now coming south? This also just so happens to coincide with the expansion of the introduced wolves into NE WA. Quite a coincidence. Not to mention the first game cam picture of a Teanaway wolf was of an animal with a radio collar on it. According the the WDFW they had no idea this wolf was there until the picture, they had not planted it, and they were unsure of its origin. I find it odd again that a radio collared wolf wandered unmonitored into the Teanaway. In my opinion the Teanaway pack was introduced. The state has been dodging reports of new packs all over the place in the state. They disputed the Blues Mtn pack for ages even with photographic evidence. The state is covering up the "expansion" of the wolf population, for what reason I do not know.
  15. Thanks, sue, for all of our research and the introduction of facts. ribka, time for your meds.
    Jason Rolfe likes this.
  16. 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.
  17. 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!
  18. 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.
  19. Sounds like there's something you're a LOT more afraid of than wolves!

  20. That must have used up most of your intellect to come up with that one...

Share This Page