Six Gray Wolves in Washington Were Fatally Poisoned, Officials Say (NY Times)

TicTokCroc · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Crap - wrong thread. Thought we were still talking about corn dogs...

So wolves... My 2cents - wolves are amazing animals. Top predators and worthy of respect and admiration in the animal kingdom. They belong in vast wild areas, such as the cold and remote northern areas of Alaska, Canada, Europe, and Asia. In fact, populations are doing quite well in these regions.

What I don't agree with is trying to force us to go back in time here in the lower 48 and shoehorn in species that have been wiped out. Wolves, mastodons, t-rex... Simply because something USED to live here, doesn't mean it needs to come back, especially if has a vast and healthy population and habitat elsewhere in the world. This concept of 'endangered regionally" is terrible science and policy.

Bottom line, the age of wolves in the lower 48 is over. Trying to artificially re-introduce packs in these heavily human populated states is nothing short of a mental disorder. Some hippy pipedream they came up with while listening to "imagine" by John Lennon. Reality and truth can be hard to swallow, but that is what responsible grownups do.

Yep. Protect them where they can still be successful not in constant conflict. Sometimes we can't go back 200 years.

I was really confused for a minute... is he talking about deep frying a wolf???

Matt B · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
What I don't agree with is trying to force us to go back in time here in the lower 48 and shoehorn in species that have been wiped out. Wolves, mastodons, t-rex... Simply because something USED to live here, doesn't mean it needs to come back, especially if has a vast and healthy population and habitat elsewhere in the world. This concept of 'endangered regionally" is terrible science and policy.

Bottom line, the age of wolves in the lower 48 is over. Trying to artificially re-introduce packs in these heavily human populated states is nothing short of a mental disorder. Some hippy pipedream they came up with while listening to "imagine" by John Lennon. Reality and truth can be hard to swallow, but that is what responsible grownups do.

Couldn't the same thing be said about imperiled fishes in parts of their former or shrinking range?

p.s. I got your corn dog joke

Chadk · Oct 12, 2022

Matt B said:
Couldn't the same thing be said about imperiled fishes in parts of their former or shrinking range?

p.s. I got your corn dog joke

Sure, but a huge difference... are we talking about piranhas in Lake WA? Otherwise simply apples and oranges. Steelhead aren't killing cattle and pets and treeing biologists.

Billy · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Crap - wrong thread. Thought we were still talking about corn dogs...

So wolves... My 2cents - wolves are amazing animals. Top predators and worthy of respect and admiration in the animal kingdom. They belong in vast wild areas, such as the cold and remote northern areas of Alaska, Canada, Europe, and Asia. In fact, populations are doing quite well in these regions.

What I don't agree with is trying to force us to go back in time here in the lower 48 and shoehorn in species that have been wiped out. Wolves, mastodons, t-rex... Simply because something USED to live here, doesn't mean it needs to come back, especially if has a vast and healthy population and habitat elsewhere in the world. This concept of 'endangered regionally" is terrible science and policy.

Bottom line, the age of wolves in the lower 48 is over. Trying to artificially re-introduce packs in these heavily human populated states is nothing short of a mental disorder. Some hippy pipedream they came up with while listening to "imagine" by John Lennon. Reality and truth can be hard to swallow, but that is what responsible grownups do.

Sounds like you need a seat at the next wolf conflict meeting...

Chadk · Oct 12, 2022

Billy said:
Sounds like you need a seat at the next wolf conflict meeting...

That would be fun. I'd be eating corndogs and grinning the whole time.

Matt B · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Sure, but a huge difference... are we talking about piranhas in Lake WA? Otherwise simply apples and oranges. Steelhead aren't killing cattle and pets and treeing biologists.

That is true, but there is a huge economic burden imposed on many of us (all of us?) due to those imperiled fishes. I would venture to guess it is an order of magnitude greater, maybe multiple orders of magnitude greater, than the economic costs of wolf recovery/management. Some people care a whole lot more about cash dollars than they do about dead cattle and pets and treed biologists, or some fish that are not in danger of going extinct globally due to healthy populations elsewhere.

Salmo_g · Oct 12, 2022

Divad said:
I literally said “10+ yrs no key thus far” in regards to research. Did you not read that part?

Yes, I did read that part. You mention that range riding is the only tool that works. I think it's presumptive to say that the only tool - known so far to work - is the only tool that might ever be found or developed that works. I'm not in a position to say that research won't produce another tool that works as well or better or is more cost effective. Are you?

The way I look at it is that WA was and is between a rock and a hard place. People often forget, ignore, or were never aware that WA did NOT reintroduce wolves to this state. Wolves were already in southern B.C. and Idaho, and it was only a matter of time until they showed up in WA. WDFW, an agency known for its reactionary history, for once got out in front and began developing a state wolf management plan before any wolf packs were known to have moved into the state. As a long time WDFW (and predecessor agencies) observer, I'm positively amazed at that.

I think it was a certainty that any wolf management plan would be controversial. How could it not be? Conservationists would find any plan as not conserving enough for wolves, and ranchers would find any plan short of total annihilation as not conserving enough for livestock. That is why I think the state's inevitably imperfect plan did a pretty good job of "threading the needle" between ESA compliance and allowing the removal of wolves that repeatedly prey on livestock. It seems like your perfect, or more perfect, solution is to spend the research money on range riding, one tool that has shown some effectiveness. I don't know what the "right" split is between spending available funds on the one existing tool and continued research into additional tools. If you do know, then why don't you explain your credentials, and if we agree, then we can support your position?

Chadk · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Sure, but a huge difference... are we talking about piranhas in Lake WA? Otherwise simply apples and oranges. Steelhead aren't killing cattle and pets and treeing biologists.

Also, the benefits of a thriving salmon and steelhead population to the local community and economy are extensive.

Also, when then they play 'god' they chose wolves over truly endangered woodland caribou. https://www.hcn.org/issues/51.4/latest-the-last-woodland-caribou-has-left-the-lower-48

Matt B · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Also, the benefits of a thriving salmon and steelhead population to the local community and economy are extensive.

If you are a dam owner/operator, this is arguable. Some would say that in today's day and age that restoring thriving salmon and steelhead populations to the Columbia basin is obviously not going to be possible so why are we wasting money and time on it.

Mostly I'm playing devil's advocate here. With respect.

Chadk · Oct 12, 2022

Matt B said:
If you are a dam owner/operator, this is arguable. Some would say that in today's day and age that restoring thriving salmon and steelhead populations to the Columbia basin is obviously not going to be possible so why are we wasting money and time on it.

Mostly I'm playing devil's advocate here. With respect.

Understood. Of course salmon and steelhead recovery is a controversial and complex topic and has it's own set of challenges and pros and cons. But it is apples and oranges compared to wolves. Fish are a resource we are struggling to maintain. Wolves are a burden to our resources.

Salmo_g · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Crap - wrong thread. Thought we were still talking about corn dogs...

So wolves... My 2cents - wolves are amazing animals. Top predators and worthy of respect and admiration in the animal kingdom. They belong in vast wild areas, such as the cold and remote northern areas of Alaska, Canada, Europe, and Asia. In fact, populations are doing quite well in these regions.

What I don't agree with is trying to force us to go back in time here in the lower 48 and shoehorn in species that have been wiped out. Wolves, mastodons, t-rex... Simply because something USED to live here, doesn't mean it needs to come back, especially if has a vast and healthy population and habitat elsewhere in the world. This concept of 'endangered regionally" is terrible science and policy.

Bottom line, the age of wolves in the lower 48 is over. Trying to artificially re-introduce packs in these heavily human populated states is nothing short of a mental disorder. Some hippy pipedream they came up with while listening to "imagine" by John Lennon. Reality and truth can be hard to swallow, but that is what responsible grownups do.

There's some fundamental differences between the disappearance of wolves (wiped out in most states via direct extermination) versus the extinction of mastodons and T-rex. Further, the "age of wolves" has never been over in the lower 48. A healthy population of wolves has continued to exist in Minnesota. The wolves there prey on deer, and Minnesota isn't known so much as a cattle ranching state, so maybe the conflicts that have developed in NE WA have never occurred there. However, I learned that wolves, either from Minnesota or Canada, have expanded their range into Wisconsin, where they prey on deer. People in Wisconsin are upset to have wolf predation on deer, seemingly ignoring that coyotes have been preying on a whole lot more deer all along. It looks like people prefer static conditions and don't want to see a "new predator on the block."

Again, no one has artificially reintroduced wolves to WA. Wolves from neighboring B.C. and Idaho moved in, sort of illustrating that nature abhors a vacuum. The difference is that in the early 20th century society found it acceptable to deliberately exterminate wildlife species that interfered with ranching, and now, since the late 20th century we have the ESA, where society - for better or worse - has decided that we will maintain and recover endemic species in their natural ranges. What the ESA doesn't do a good job of is addressing the reality that some parts of those natural ranges are now presently less suited to the survival and recovery of listed species. What it seems to say in regard to conflict between recovery and alternate uses of those natural ranges is, "Suck it up, Buttercup." Now if society decides it doesn't want to share these alternate uses of a species range, then we are free to modify the ESA. And lest I forget, the ESA does have the allowance for exception via a CEQ (the God Squad) decision to allow a species to go extinct.

Chadk · Oct 12, 2022

Salmo_g said:
There's some fundamental differences between the disappearance of wolves (wiped out in most states via direct extermination) versus the extinction of mastodons and T-rex. Further, the "age of wolves" has never been over in the lower 48. A healthy population of wolves has continued to exist in Minnesota. The wolves there prey on deer, and Minnesota isn't known so much as a cattle ranching state, so maybe the conflicts that have developed in NE WA have never occurred there. However, I learned that wolves, either from Minnesota or Canada, have expanded their range into Wisconsin, where they prey on deer. People in Wisconsin are upset to have wolf predation on deer, seemingly ignoring that coyotes have been preying on a whole lot more deer all along. It looks like people prefer static conditions and don't want to see a "new predator on the block."

Again, no one has artificially reintroduced wolves to WA. Wolves from neighboring B.C. and Idaho moved in, sort of illustrating that nature abhors a vacuum. The difference is that in the early 20th century society found it acceptable to deliberately exterminate wildlife species that interfered with ranching, and now, since the late 20th century we have the ESA, where society - for better or worse - has decided that we will maintain and recover endemic species in their natural ranges. What the ESA doesn't do a good job of is addressing the reality that some parts of those natural ranges are now presently less suited to the survival and recovery of listed species. What it seems to say in regard to conflict between recovery and alternate uses of those natural ranges is, "Suck it up, Buttercup." Now if society decides it doesn't want to share these alternate uses of a species range, then we are free to modify the ESA. And lest I forget, the ESA does have the allowance for exception via a CEQ (the God Squad) decision to allow a species to go extinct.

Agree to disagree on how the wolves got here in the numbers they are today...

Minnesota is part of the lower 48? Guess you are right... But a "healthy population of wolves"? Assuming you mean these guys? I don't think they have been "healthy" since Kevin Garnett.

Old Man · Oct 12, 2022

I started reading this thread thread yesterday. Now I have no idea what it's all about. After reading all the drivel on 4 pages my mind is just about gone. I don't know if I can go on.

jasmillo · Oct 12, 2022

Salmo_g said:
There's some fundamental differences between the disappearance of wolves (wiped out in most states via direct extermination) versus the extinction of mastodons and T-rex. Further, the "age of wolves" has never been over in the lower 48. A healthy population of wolves has continued to exist in Minnesota. The wolves there prey on deer, and Minnesota isn't known so much as a cattle ranching state, so maybe the conflicts that have developed in NE WA have never occurred there. However, I learned that wolves, either from Minnesota or Canada, have expanded their range into Wisconsin, where they prey on deer. People in Wisconsin are upset to have wolf predation on deer, seemingly ignoring that coyotes have been preying on a whole lot more deer all along. It looks like people prefer static conditions and don't want to see a "new predator on the block."

Again, no one has artificially reintroduced wolves to WA. Wolves from neighboring B.C. and Idaho moved in, sort of illustrating that nature abhors a vacuum. The difference is that in the early 20th century society found it acceptable to deliberately exterminate wildlife species that interfered with ranching, and now, since the late 20th century we have the ESA, where society - for better or worse - has decided that we will maintain and recover endemic species in their natural ranges. What the ESA doesn't do a good job of is addressing the reality that some parts of those natural ranges are now presently less suited to the survival and recovery of listed species. What it seems to say in regard to conflict between recovery and alternate uses of those natural ranges is, "Suck it up, Buttercup." Now if society decides it doesn't want to share these alternate uses of a species range, then we are free to modify the ESA. And lest I forget, the ESA does have the allowance for exception via a CEQ (the God Squad) decision to allow a species to go extinct.

Wait, what? A balanced take on wolf management? What are you doing posting this on the forum? Your taking up valuable forum data capacity from the animal liberation front crowd and the smoke a pack a day/sss contingent.

How dare you.

Stonedfish · Oct 12, 2022

Old Man said:
I started reading this thread thread yesterday. Now I have no idea what it's all about. After reading all the drivel on 4 pages my mind is just about gone. I don't know if I can go on.

Jim,
Relax and consider eating a corn dog.
It’s the corn meal and meat equivalent of a Snickers bar. You’ll feel better…..
SF

Canuck from Kansas · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Wolves are a burden to our resources.

I'm sure that's what the wolves say about us

Screen Shot 2022-10-12 at 1.20.06 PM.png

Dustin Chromers · Oct 12, 2022

Salmo_g said:
There's some fundamental differences between the disappearance of wolves (wiped out in most states via direct extermination) versus the extinction of mastodons and T-rex. Further, the "age of wolves" has never been over in the lower 48. A healthy population of wolves has continued to exist in Minnesota. The wolves there prey on deer, and Minnesota isn't known so much as a cattle ranching state, so maybe the conflicts that have developed in NE WA have never occurred there. However, I learned that wolves, either from Minnesota or Canada, have expanded their range into Wisconsin, where they prey on deer. People in Wisconsin are upset to have wolf predation on deer, seemingly ignoring that coyotes have been preying on a whole lot more deer all along. It looks like people prefer static conditions and don't want to see a "new predator on the block."

Again, no one has artificially reintroduced wolves to WA. Wolves from neighboring B.C. and Idaho moved in, sort of illustrating that nature abhors a vacuum. The difference is that in the early 20th century society found it acceptable to deliberately exterminate wildlife species that interfered with ranching, and now, since the late 20th century we have the ESA, where society - for better or worse - has decided that we will maintain and recover endemic species in their natural ranges. What the ESA doesn't do a good job of is addressing the reality that some parts of those natural ranges are now presently less suited to the survival and recovery of listed species. What it seems to say in regard to conflict between recovery and alternate uses of those natural ranges is, "Suck it up, Buttercup." Now if society decides it doesn't want to share these alternate uses of a species range, then we are free to modify the ESA. And lest I forget, the ESA does have the allowance for exception via a CEQ (the God Squad) decision to allow a species to go extinct.

Wait a minute! No Canadian h hybrid super wolves?! I was really hoping for a Jurassic park type situation.

Dustin Chromers · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Crap - wrong thread. Thought we were still talking about corn dogs...

So wolves... My 2cents - wolves are amazing animals. Top predators and worthy of respect and admiration in the animal kingdom. They belong in vast wild areas, such as the cold and remote northern areas of Alaska, Canada, Europe, and Asia. In fact, populations are doing quite well in these regions.

What I don't agree with is trying to force us to go back in time here in the lower 48 and shoehorn in species that have been wiped out. Wolves, mastodons, t-rex... Simply because something USED to live here, doesn't mean it needs to come back, especially if has a vast and healthy population and habitat elsewhere in the world. This concept of 'endangered regionally" is terrible science and policy.

Bottom line, the age of wolves in the lower 48 is over. Trying to artificially re-introduce packs in these heavily human populated states is nothing short of a mental disorder. Some hippy pipedream they came up with while listening to "imagine" by John Lennon. Reality and truth can be hard to swallow, but that is what responsible grownups do.

Wolves are amazing. I totally understand why they are captivating for people. Complex social structures and efficient predators that are pretty impressive. Yellowstone I think it's a triumph in a reintroduction that is a rousing success. The thing is nobody is living and ranching there. I do think ranchers in Washington on BLM land need to realize they don't own the place and losses will be incurred. However I can totally understand working a piece of land in a manner then having it change is unsettling. This is why we need Francine to mitigate this conflict.

To add to this. Wolves have had a demonstrable positive net effect on the ecology of Yellowstone. Are these benefits expected in Washington? I'm asking seriously. I think there should be measurable positive outcomes ecologically to support their repatriation. If all that is accomplished is a politically devisive money suck to protect, study, them ultimately kill wolves in a vicious circle I'm reluctant to support it.

Matt B · Oct 12, 2022

Chadk said:
Understood. Of course salmon and steelhead recovery is a controversial and complex topic and has it's own set of challenges and pros and cons. But it is apples and oranges compared to wolves. Fish are a resource we are struggling to maintain. Wolves are a burden to our resources.

I got another devil's advocate question for you. Red Wolves--perhaps as close to apples-to-apples as we're gonna get. Let 'em go extinct? Or shoot on sight?