Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wolves need our help NOW!
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Aug 24, 2016 12:49 pm 
Dave! Long time no hear from! It's been a couple years at least since I read the Wolf Management Plan. My *.pdf copy is in one of four dead computers sitting here collecting dust.* Yeah... 19 packs? Who knew? Again, I seriously doubt anybody at WDFW or USFWS realized how fast these animals would multiply here in the wild. As to de-listing, I'm not sure what the process is there, but I recall that was the end objective as part of that Wolf Management Plan. Weird thing about this, though, is that the animals are not where they "need" to be - they targeted as prime habitat for them the area down near St. Helens, which has the highest concentration of large ungulates. De-listing them prematurely and issuing tags for them might not allow that part of their "management objectives" to be realized. Tough call - I do not envy them their jobs. Brian (* FTR: I seem to have problems with computers and stoves. 18 years in this house = on my fifth computer, and the fifth stove. Maybe there's a pattern there.)

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Snowbrushy
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 6670 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Snowbrushy
Member
PostWed Aug 24, 2016 1:24 pm 
Dave Workman wrote:
there are 19 confirmed packs in Washington. The management plan called for 15.
Breeding packs.

Oh Pilot of the storm who leaves no trace Like thoughts inside a dream Heed the path that led me to that place Yellow desert stream.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Humptulips
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
Humptulips
Member
PostWed Aug 24, 2016 2:22 pm 
15 Successful breeding pairs for three years and there has to be what? 3 or 4 in SW/Coastal WA. I believe the Wolf Management plan will have to be changed eventually. Going to be a lot of problems on the eastside before there are enough on the westside to delist. Then the lawsuits will start.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Aug 24, 2016 11:32 pm 
^ Yeah... again, I don't think they really knew what was going to happen here... that was all conjured up from what they believed they knew from Idaho/Montana/Wyoming... So far the westernmost pack is still in the Teanaway, right? Nothing of note west of that so far. Maybe there's no pressure for them to move yet -- what's going to be necessary for that to happen? They split Washington in half: east/west. Can't they de-list on just the east side? Or is that not an option?

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Snowbrushy
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 6670 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Snowbrushy
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 1:53 am 
Humptulips wrote:
there has to be what? 3 or 4 in SW/Coastal WA.
None have gone west of the Cascade mountains. No SW/Coastal..

Oh Pilot of the storm who leaves no trace Like thoughts inside a dream Heed the path that led me to that place Yellow desert stream.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 6:42 am 
Tracks were spotted south of Packwood a few years ago and a few rumors of a wolf being seen. The tracks were in a couple feet of new snow, loggers had just plowed in, there were no people tracks just big wolf type tracks. It was miles from civilization and I believe we were correct in our identification. It was only one set of tracks. There also were rumors of a pack in the Mt. St Helens area but I think that rumor was bogus. Or perhaps the pack failed?

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Snowbrushy
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 6670 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Snowbrushy
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 6:53 am 
It was probably a probe looking for habitat. They'll never settle around the civilization.

Oh Pilot of the storm who leaves no trace Like thoughts inside a dream Heed the path that led me to that place Yellow desert stream.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 9:20 am 
Snowbrushy wrote:
It was probably a probe looking for habitat. They'll never settle around the civilization.
Or maybe they will, and then people will want to shoot them.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Humptulips
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 234 | TRs | Pics
Humptulips
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 11:20 am 
Snowbrushy wrote:
Humptulips wrote:
there has to be what? 3 or 4 in SW/Coastal WA.
None have gone west of the Cascade mountains. No SW/Coastal..
I believe WDFW is trying to confirm a pack in Whatcom/Skagit counties now. At least they have enough reports to look. That is a long way from SW/Coastal WA though. There is going to be a problem delisting in the western 2/3rds of the State regardless because they are still under Federal protection.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 2:26 pm 
What function are the wolves serving when their primary diet is domesticated house pets and livestock? Exactly what "hole" are they filling and what portion of the environment is worse off without their presence? If they are eating coyotes and rats I guess it would be ok to put up with a little collateral damage but if not???

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 9:04 pm 
^ good question. the big sales pitch touted by DOW and other groups uses as ammunition the papers by Beschta-Ripple (OSU) - best example is the study done at Yellowstone, where restoration of the apex predator changed behavioral patterns of large ungulates (elk) and the net result was regrowth of native willow along streambanks. so.... there's an actual need for such a thing in some places in Washington where ungulate populations have increased unabated for nearly a century. problem is the wolf is a long ways away from those drainages. wild speculation on my part, but maybe they're fat and happy over on the other side of the hill. if they've got easy pickings over there, what's the impetus for them to move west? and, as you note, they don't serve as much of a benefit if they're just eating dumb old cows. but hey, somebody forgot all about that old anecdote about "good intentions".

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 9:18 pm 
Ski wrote:
where restoration of the apex predator changed behavioral patterns of large ungulates (elk) and the net result was regrowth of native willow along streambanks.
Wasn't that study to found to be totally bogus or something? I don't know. Even if it was the case, if Yellowstone cuts weren't dying from high stream temps (not that the hot springs that already dump water into the rivers have any effect on water temperature) then why would willows regrowing along a streambank matter? If that's the effect wolves have, then aren't humans filling that void every fall during bow and rifle season? Obviously people can't hunt in national parks but outside of them aren't people with guns taking the place of the wolves? Except wolves don't chew tobacco and listen to 570 KVI.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 10:10 pm 
in order: Hmm... no, the papers of Beschta-Ripple aren't "bogus". There's more than one study they've done. Many of them are available for download on the web in *.pdf format. Lengthy, tedious reading, but thorough. The riparian zone streamside vegetation (in the case of Yellowstone) was being "nipped in the bud" in a literal sense, which resulted in not just higher water temperatures but also an on-going problem with bank erosion, ultimately leading to channel braiding, and streambed elevation changes. (Hydrogeomorphology stuff - gets complicated and uses a lot of mathematical equations that don't really make sense to me, but a one-on-one talk with one of the authors of several papers out of UW Fisheries gave me a better handle on it.)(Math was never my strong suit.) Hunting and trapping (and other human depradation) doesn't have the same net effect on elk populations as does continued, sustained harassment by predators. No, humans with .270 Winchesters cannot and will not replace the wolf. See above. == Best example I can give you is the Queets Valley. Largest herds of elk on the Olympic Peninsula (per my last conversation with ONP's wildlife biologist) are the Elwha and Queets herds. Lot of animals. Sure, they'll run like hell if you spook 'em, or walk up on the herd, but the rest of the time they're lolling about in the alder flats along the river blithely munching away - not a care in the world. Several years ago (you can find it in one of my trip reports) I ran into a couple guys who were camped just upstream from me - one of them was a fisheries biologist who noted the lack of young cottonwood in the valley. For the last five years, my radar has been tuned in - looking for young cottonwood - and I haven't been seeing any. As I mentioned in that TR, it's rather odd, considering Robert Van Pelt places the world's largest Black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) in the Queets campground, and there are huge specimens up and down the valley - but no little stuff. What's the first tree that pioneers on a scoured gravel bar? Red alder. What's second? Black cottonwood. Why the complete lack of young Black cottonwood in the valley? It is, per John Meyer, retired fisheries biologist at ONP, the most dynamic river on the peninsula in terms of stream flow fluctuation. It is also quite dynamic in terms of channel migration (see papers by R. Naiman, J. Latterell, UW Fisheries.) Those are givens, and are "normal" conditions for a wild river. What is anomalous is the channel braiding and streambed elevation rise. (Same thing is happening on the upper Carbon.) The braiding is especially apparent on the stretch between the mouth of Tshletshy and Alta Creek - that's where I have noted it to be more radical. Ultimately that sort of thing leads to excessive siltation problems, and has other effects which are detrimental to anadromous salmonid runs. == That said, I don't see simply bringing the wolf into the equation as a panacea for all that's wrong with our fisheries. Moreover, I question the wisdom of such a tremendous expenditure of resources on a project that will only get more expensive as time goes on, and will only lead to more conflict - thus far there seems to be no "middle ground" on the issue; both sides want it all, which just simply isn't realistic. I should note that doing a search for that TR above, I've said all this stuff repeatedly in this thread, but the argument still persists, and the same people who refuse to listen and/or do the research are the same people making the most noise here. but.. you know.. you can lead a horse to water..... wink.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MadCapLaughs
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
MadCapLaughs
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 10:34 pm 
WANative wrote:
What function are the wolves serving when their primary diet is domesticated house pets and livestock? Exactly what "hole" are they filling and what portion of the environment is worse off without their presence? If they are eating coyotes and rats I guess it would be ok to put up with a little collateral damage but if not???
I can't even begin to address the lies, ignorance, and moral bankruptcy on display in this post. Congratulations: this post is up there with some of the worst posts in this thread, and that says a lot, what with all the outright advocacy of poaching (care of treeswarper) and bloodthirsty hatred that has been on display here.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostThu Aug 25, 2016 11:07 pm 
Ski wrote:
Hunting and trapping (and other human depradation) doesn't have the same net effect on elk populations as does continued, sustained harassment by predators.No, humans with .270 Winchesters cannot and will not replace the wolf.See above.==Best example I can give you is the Queets Valley. Largest herds of elk on the Olympic Peninsula (per my last conversation with ONP's wildlife biologist) are the Elwha and Queets herds. Lot of animals.Sure, they'll run like hell if you spook 'em, or walk up on the herd, but the rest of the time they're lolling about in the alder flats along the river blithely munching away - not a care in the world.
I see the point and I get it but, In both these cases, the animals are in National Parks and thus no hunting allowed which I think makes a for a bad "control groupt" in such a study. Bears (as I am sure you know) and Cougar were more common way back when in the queets valley. Wouldn't these animals fulfill almost the same role as a wolves if they exist in sufficient numbers?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wolves need our help NOW!
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum