Washington we have a problem ( wolf attack )

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Tom O'Riley, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. Stonefish

    Stonefish Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    4,042
    Likes Received:
    1,723
    Location:
    Pipers Creek
    Would someone please post some pictures of a hunter long arming their Sasquatch kill?
     
  2. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,367
    Likes Received:
    2,682
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    I hear wolves can help with this problem also.
     
  3. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,663
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    Location:
    m-ville
    I wish somebody would reintroduce wild boars they would be a good food source for wolves,
     
  4. kidwithdog

    kidwithdog Guest

    Salmo G,

    I don't have sources for who funds the F&W service besides taxpayers. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that the decision makers are not influenced directly by bribe money from interested parties or indirectly, i.e. if they don't make decisions with a pro-wolf bias they will lose political cooperation from groups such as Oregon Wild and the Sierra Club. Their political support is huge, enough to bias the F&W in my opinion.
     
  5. Mark Walker

    Mark Walker Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    333
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    ........and after 199 posts, the pack finally turns on itself:rofl::rofl::rofl::beathead:
     
  6. Ryan Higgins

    Ryan Higgins Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    223
    Location:
    Central, WA
    Defenders of Wildlife for one.

    The PRIVATE Turner Endangered Species Fund, while not a "wolf special interest group" is funding biologists in Montana.
     
  7. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,650
    Likes Received:
    3,000
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Kidwithdog,

    Not a stretch? I hope you're kidding. It's illegal for any USFWS biologist to take bribes, so if your hunch can be proven, bodies will be fired. I used to work for USFWS and can go upstairs and down the hall and ask the USFWS biologists I know if they know of anyone in MT taking bribes, but I'm pretty sure I'd be wasting my time. More likely USFWS biologists are pro-wolf for the same reason they are pro- most every fish and wildlife species. They are biologists, and they have an interest in wildlife conservation and the restoration of functional ecosystems. Agency biologists have no need for political support; their problem occasionally is with political opposition because fish and wildlife conservation interferes with moneyed interests that have bought and paid for political influence, having seen that myself.

    Alpine4x4,

    So what? Are they funding USFWS project work? Private interests spend all kinds of money for and against many things, but that's not the same as funding USFWS work. Not all biologists work for USFWS. I was asking for the identity of one or more private interests that supplies funding to USFWS programs because I don't know of any.

    Sg
     
  8. Itchy Dog

    Itchy Dog Some call me Kirk Werner

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    3,880
    Likes Received:
    547
    Location:
    Doo-vall
    Home Page:
    You don't have to look far to find photos of rather impressive wolves harvested in the lower 48 (most in Idaho). These are reported to be 170 and 180lbs. Granted not all the Northern/Canadian Gray Wolves in the lower 48 get this big, but, well, these are huge.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Ryan Nathe

    Ryan Nathe Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I am not sure about the top wold photo you posted, but I am near certain that the lower wolf was shot in the Drayton Valley area of Alberta, as in Canada.
     
  10. generic

    generic Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    854
    The top one was north Idaho, near Elk city
     
  11. skyrise

    skyrise Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    everett, wa.
    have talke to a few fellow fishers who hunt the Idaho/Montana area (northern). all have said that deer/elk populations are way down in all areas where wolves have been reported. some of the areas these guys used to hunt are no longer worth the time to go. one area is outside of Macall. salmon river area.
    does make me wonder if what they thought was a good idea, is now out of control?
    sorta like sea lions were no problem for years, and now look at the mess.
     
  12. ribka

    ribka Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    E WA
    bawling:
    But just think of all of the wonderful fishing opportunities once all of the elk and moose are exterminated by the wonderful wolves. Dontcha know they are destroying all of the riparian habitat by the stream, creeks and rivers in MT,WY,ID,OR and WA? Exploding wolf populations are a win win forWashington fly fishermen. Oh and they only kill sick and diseased animals too.:thumb:
     
  13. Flyborg

    Flyborg Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,384
    Likes Received:
    666
    Location:
    Kalama, WA
    This is why we should start harvesting bull trout again. They just keep eating and procreating. Pretty soon there won't be any salmon and steelhead left.
     
  14. KerryS

    KerryS Ignored Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,367
    Likes Received:
    2,682
    Location:
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    What biologists?
     
  15. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    Hunter success is not a good or unbiased measure of animal abundance. One of the first things that happens with wolf reintroduction (and any predator reintroduction for that matter) is an instantaneous change in prey behavior--the prey alter their behavior to reduce the risk of being eaten. This is well known and published on. For elk and deer, this may mean being more cautious and altering where and how they spend their time. If these changes also make them less available to hunters, well you could easily see a reduction in hunter success without any actual change in animal abundance. This of course isn't to say that there truly is no change in abundance, merely that hunter success is not an unbiased or good measure of animal abundance because of the confounding condition described above.