Northern WI wolf attack

Visitation. A blank spot on the map does not a wilderness make. Look at the access points. Gila wilderness is roadless, huge by American standards. Go to a trailhead parking area during deer season and marvel at the number of stock trailers. Utilization is a primary determinant of wilderness attributes. The brown highways and permanent outfitter camps south of Yellowstone don’t qualify it as wilderness regardless of size, bureaucratic labeling. I used to pack and guide in the Bridger Wilderness in the massive Wind River Range, dodging cattle and huge sheep herds in the summer. The trails are eroded to the bedrock. Meadows are covered in sheep crap, grazed to the dirt. Campsites are denuded. South of YNP, where there’s more topsoil, trails are eroded thigh deep on horseback. I could go on about BWCA, but suffice to say, as utilization increases with population, wilderness attributes will decline. Human caused forest fires belie the idea that tree coverage will ever revert to Pre Columbian diversity or density. Hasn’t happened anywhere I know of. Also, a track of roadless area must be more massive as population grows, which is inverse to the trend. Surrounding development confounds wilderness. Wolves and bears not migratory ungulates can’t be confined to small tracks, hence the conflicts with people increase.

AG: No one is complaining, the discussion was about “wilderness” resources in relation to wolves and development, how population growth will ultimately decide the effectiveness of all preservation efforts.

Population growth is embedded in our psyche as a given, although it is THE existential factor for all wild species on the planet (and humans too, ultimately). And we absolutely know that invasive species, infestations and timber over-harvesting have permanently eliminated dominant tree species in most of N America. Around here, chestnut and elms were dominant. Good luck ever finding those again. Wolves could never exist here again although they were once plentiful.

As far as pre-Anglo forests go, there are plenty of first hand descriptions, paintings of the forest growth from bygone eras.

Like many in the conservation and preservation movement, I see access and recreation values at odds with those of preservation. We set aside land for people, not land ethics reasons. Wolves and bears are temporary residents anywhere they are currently tolerated or appreciated. I’m glad they’re around for my lifetime, at least.

Black_Fly said:

People do know that invasive species, infestations and timber over harvesting has eliminated dominant forest species. Around here, chestnut and elms were dominant. Good luck ever finding those ever again. There are plenty of first hand descriptions, paintings of the forest growth from bygone eras.

Click to expand...

I get that. But pretty much all the species that grew here 250 years ago did not grow here 10,000 years ago. Surely there were species that suffered when the elm tree first showed up. It's very prolific and likely outcompeted other species. Nature is not static.

I'm not saying we should just toss up our hands and give up but the earth has been through worse than humans. We're just another disturbance and over the centuries and millennia things will sort themselves out one way or another. Today's prolific invasive will be woven into the tapestry as just another member of the community and will suffer competition from new species.

We can bemoan what's been lost or enjoy what we have. The past always seems better than the present but the present might be better than the future so I'm choosing to not complain (at least too much). Besides, the present is the only place I can live.

There will never be an end and humans will someday just be a speck of history unknown to anyone/anything. We're not as important as we like to think.

Alan

Alan Gage said:

There will never be an end and humans will someday just be a speck of history unknown to anyone/anything. We're not as important as we like to think.

Alan

Click to expand...

"Nature is indifferent to the survival of the human species, including Americans."
-- Adlai Stevenson II (Radio address 29 September 1952)

Notice the date on that.

I have a little different view when I see a heavily worn trail, and a little different historical perspective. We're so used to thinking that this continent was lightly populated prior to the European invasion. But as time and attention have progressed, that appears more and more to be not the case. Much of our highways follow historical trails that were initially foot traffic only. Very likely, the bulk of our trails into wild lands have the same history. What is decidedly different now vs pre-columbian times is horses. I have to wonder what these trails might have looked like had the First Nations been using horses for a hundred years before the population crashed due to alien disease.

And that is related to what I see where horses are in use today. Outfitters and horse owners tend to use the same main trails and wear them down. It's just like cars and roads though. People largely don't venture far from their conveyance. And so we see mostly the impacted places while completely missing the big picture.

I'm not saying the impacts aren't bad, I'm just saying that our view of the state of wilderness is a matter of perspective. Where it relates to wolves, bears, cougars and their survival..... it's evident here that the only thing that can threaten that is man's level of tolerance. Even outside of the designated wilderness, compared to forty years ago, all three are thriving. It is absolutely correct to assume that human/wolf/cat/bear conflict is likely to always be an issue.

This whole pie in the sky notion that somehow we might (or should aspire to) "get back" to "the good ol days" before --- is charming and worthy of the finest puffy dreamcloud ( I often go there), but we lost the maps to those Elysian fields eons ago. I may be settling for less but I'm quite content to make do.
My own making do has meant redecorating our humble abode before the Black Friday/Christmas/Stupor Bowl/oh my gawd I forgot how to drive on snow! season arrives. This ain't a slice of heaven but by and by I'm getting closer to that as I age, so we'll see how it works out.
The "far land of Spare Oom where eternal summer reigns" is my domestic escape. Much of my reading material is (now) neatly ordered there, and this spare bedroom has been decorated to reflect my interest in nature and literature. It's also where the gkids sleep when they're invading our shores. So too the family dogs. Seems a natural fit.
It was in this Oom relaxing reading where I came across this on the laptop.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...peche-mexico/FFDB435047017853F26CFC5D8804B08D
Interesting how the jungle couldn't quite erase the cultural signs of man on the landscape. Dams and plazas returned to nature?
Which led me to revisit archeology closer to home.
I love this stuff, archeology, arts, prehistory, culture, and our confusing mix of man and nature; where do we fit?
At a recent birthday party (our grandson is 1 yr old!) I got talking to our daughter's father-in-law, and he gave me a show and tell. They'd gone to the UK for a walking holiday (to try out his new hip!) and showed me his pics of neolithic sites in Wiltshire. "I don't want to bore you Brad"; I made him show me all he had stored on his phone. Visiting these megaliths on the landscape looks like a perfect geek holiday to me.
Some see scars, others see signs. Context and perspective I suppose. Although I think I'd love to experience true wilderness I know I'd be very happy settling for less. Not every mark left on the landscape left by man can be viewed in a positive light but I hope that if we can't live with them we may at least learn from them.
Well, sorry for the boring blab. I've got some Spare Oom prepping to do. We're minding a young lady named Cordelia for a week, and she sheds, so I've got to throw a dropsheet and cozy blankie on the bed, and check the pantry for doggie treats. Man and nature, eh?

​

​

Odyssey said:

Although I think I'd love to experience true wilderness I know I'd be very happy settling for less.

Click to expand...

I'm often happy just knowing such places exist. It's too bad people seem to have a hard time just leaving things alone. Does it really exist if we don't visit it?

I've traveled to places and explored where there are no trails or any sign that man has done anything to make it more hospitable for himself. Whether or not they could be considered "wilderness" I don't know but I'm guessing that's what much of the wilderness looked like hundreds of years ago. More than once, as I found myself struggling with every step while trying to untangle my arms and legs from the vines and limbs grabbing them, and unable to see any grand views because of the tangle surrounding me, I reflected how I didn't blame the pioneers one bit for wanting to cut down this "paradise" and turn it into farm land.

Alan

Holy thread drift Batman!...

More than once, as I found myself struggling with every step while trying to untangle my arms and legs from the vines and limbs grabbing them, and unable to see any grand views because of the tangle surrounding me, I reflected how I didn't blame the pioneers one bit for wanting to cut down this "paradise" and turn it into farm land.

Click to expand...

Yep. Even today I think I'd like to hit the lottery and fly a bulldozer and about 100 (thousand?) truckloads of gravel into Ara Lake in Ontario. I'd love to "fix" the last 2 portages on the Marshall Lake loop but, then again, maybe that would completely ruin them.

ppine said:

In North America, ecosystems are becoming more complete all the time. Wilderness areas are growing not diminishing.

Click to expand...

What’s your source for this statement?

This dream of existence that we all share is individualized by our own unique subjective conditioning.

I lived for two years on a fly in reserve many miles north of my current location. Most people would consider the location to be in the middle of a vast wilderness. Human impact was minimal at the time, related only to the harvesting of animals and firewood for the small local population. Sometimes in the winter, I would wander out onto the four foot ice of Eabamet Lake and stare up at the northern lights. At -40 with not a breath of wind, the silence was massive, the air so clear that a full moon would burn you.

At the end of my contract, we flew out for the last time. The plane had to go to Pickle Lake first. As we de-planed to catch the connection, we were standing on the tarmac and my wife turned to me and said "Can you believe it, we are finally back in civilization!" There was an older American couple waiting for another flight, and the fella turned to his wife and said "Well honey, we made it, we are finally in the wilderness".

I believe "wilderness" is a state of mind for Canadians, and it involves concepts of fear and unknowing. For instance, the colonial concept of wilderness defined by new arrivals to Canada in the 17 and 1800's was one of a great looming threat. The settlers didn't have the knowledge or skills to deal with the unknown concept of endless miles of trees and rocks. Conversely, the Indigenous concept of "Wilderness" probably involved large urban centres, where they were faced with isolation and the difficulty of navigating the unknown. It's all subjective. That's where the difficulties arise in coming up with a common agreement of what constitutes wilderness.

In my last round of trying to save canoe routes from the forest companies, I constructed a substantial power point entitled "The Illusion of Wilderness". This concept was first introduced to me by Hoop, whom I sure many of you will remember. We were out for a paddle one night when he was up here for an MNR thing, and he suggested that the best we could do was to try to preserve the illusion of wilderness for many canoe routes. I sold that concept to the forest companies. I showed them many google earth images of unmaintained waterway parks, like the Steel, where cutting was active right up to a 200 meter buffer that protected the loop. I showed them many pictures from my trips where wildlife was abundant and there was no sight of roads or cutting. I told them that most canoeists doing the route had no idea that a 200 meter stroll would bring them to a logging road. In the end I got several concessions from them, not as much as was needed, but a good start.

I am in the middle of a vast effort to denude the landscape of as many trees as possible. However, in my short time up here, around 35 years, I have seen areas destroyed by logging and by forest fires return to the wild, where one could travel through and feel completely alone, and where animals had returned with a vengeance.

I think most of us live with an illusion of wilderness that is defined by our own unique set of circumstances.

At this point in my life, I leave it to others to deal with the macroscopic issues of wilderness—its ambiguous meaning and its controversial usage and preservation.

Personally, for simple canoe trips in the USA and near-border Canada, "wilderness" has been not much more than a subjective state of mind for me. If I can go out of sight from a put-in and be among nature, flora, fauna and a significant absence of visible human habitation, I've always been in a sufficiently good mental place. I've never needed to geographically be hundreds of miles from the nearest town to enjoy paddling a canoe.

Does that mean I've missed out on paddling some interesting places? Yes. But c'est la vie and que sera sera.

Nick Pending said:

"Nature is indifferent to the survival of the human species, including Americans."
-- Adlai Stevenson II (Radio address 29 September 1952)

Notice the date on that.

Click to expand...

Not relevant in this age. We now have nuclear power plants that will eventually melt down with the demise of civilization, as well as imminently more destructive nuclear weapons. Plus, people generally had no idea that humans could impact climate to the degree it is happening. How can one say humans are irrelevant to nature with such long term and potentially permanent changes to the biological support systems on this planet? Stevenson was naive, just as those who said the oceans could never be depleted of fish or those that claimed the northern forests were inexhaustible. Humans have the power, and ultimately the choice to turn earth into a lifeless rock in space.

Black_Fly said:

Not relevant in this age. We now have nuclear power plants that will eventually melt down with the demise of civilization....

Click to expand...

Way off topic, but as an aside, the latest nuke designs that will be coming online very soon (sooner in other countries than the US, apparently) will not have that defect. That problem has been solved.

But yeah.....much of nature would be happier if we weren't here. Then all the critters could go about killing each other without competition from us.

So the 100s of nuke power plants are about to be retrofitted with a fail safe so cooling the fuel is not necessary? I’ll have to read up on that. Seems far-fetched but it would be cool if it’s true and universally applied. Mankind can’t universally act on anything, especially if the ROI is not immediate.

Nature may be “indifferent” but still dependent on the acts of man. Stewardship is always irrespective of the ward’s consciousness.

100 years from now, if backcountry canoeing is still a thing, there will be about 1.3 billion people in the US competing for permits and every other accoutrement making life possible, convenient, and entertaining. Development around and inside what wild lands remain will be just as unbelievable as what exists now would be for a 1924 citizen. THAT’s the mission of preservation. It’s a daunting task in the face of a consumption first culture. Wolf enthusiasts have little say in the long run without changes to the growth paradigm of civilization.

Black_Fly said:

So the 100s of nuke power plants are about to be retrofitted with a fail safe so cooling the fuel is not necessary? I’ll have to read up on that. Seems far-fetched but it would be cool if it’s true and universally applied.

Click to expand...

No, as far as I know, retrofitting existing reactors isn't in the works. From what I read, the plan is to gradually replace the current generation with the new technology. If reported are to be believed, there is plenty of motivation - safety and economic - for the new tech to be adopted universally. But you know how we are, so who knows.

We can't predict 100 years into the future, although we like to pretend we can.

Art D,
Thirty years as an environmental consultant, working with all Federal and most State agencies in every western state.
New animal species are showing up on their historic ranges all the time.
The acreage of dedicated wilderness areas is increasing, not decreasing. There are plenty of places I used to hunt in Nevada by road, that now have no roads.

The perspective in the East and Midwest might be somewhat different.

ppine said:

The perspective in the East and Midwest might be somewhat different.

Click to expand...

The midwestern prairie landscape was demolished in about a generation. It did not offer much resistance.

That being said I think in the last 100 years change has mostly been positive. Farm land is always increasing but there is also more land set aside. Farm practices are better and efforts are being made to improve what we have.

I'm reading a book of journal entries and newspaper columns written by a local naturalist who was born here not too long after settlement and recorded what he saw. The journal entries start in the late 1800's and the newspaper articles start around 1930. I find it very interesting because their homestead was about 1/4 mile from my house and I'm very familiar with the areas he talks about.

While we won't be seeing the return of elk, bison, and wolves anytime soon we have seen an increase in many other bird and animal species that he regrets the loss of.

Some of the prairie and forest plants he mentions are lost (or nearly so because I've never found them) but for the most part he wasn't seeing anything I'm not seeing today.

I expected to read this book and hear of all the things our county as lost but instead I'm finding we've gained much.

Many bird and animal species that, in his day, were gone and seemingly lost forever, have return in force and are commonplace sights. Even to the point of being considered a nuisance by some.

Lakes and sloughs that, in his day were already choked with carp, are being overhauled to eliminate the carp and bring back vegetation to hopefully make them the waterfowl factories they were in the olden days.

I wouldn't call any of this "wilderness" but it all seems to be a step in the right direction.

Alan

Black Fly,
Perspective. I used to work in Wyoming a lot and lived in Laramie. The whole state is pretty much intact ecosystems. Some places are loved to death more than others. A trip up the S Fork of the Shoshone River into the Absaroka Range was like no other. We headed to The Thoroughfare over the Buffalo Plateau. We got in 50 miles from the nearest dirt road. Trails were faint, no campsites, no campfire rings, no fences, no litter, no cut tree stumps. Trail maintenance ends at around 15 miles in. Sometimes there are landslides and jumbled piles of trees in the trail. All the wildlife species were there including grizz tracks in the trail.

The intent of the Wilderness Act is to provide places "where there are opportunities for solitude and the effects of man's presence are unnoticeable." I can find that 2 miles out behind the house. Wilderness areas by definition have no roads. My favorite practical definition of a wilderness area is "more than 5 miles from a road."

My hope is that everyone on this page can experience what real wilderness feels like. A canoe is a good way to find it. If you need a permit and have to camp in designated places you are probably not there yet. In the West the rivers have been settled for 150 years with some notable exceptions. A pack string is a better way to find the real remoteness. In other parts of the country the canoe is the best way to "find the gateway to peace and solitude." Col Townsend Whelen.

No matter what tracks are set aside, we have an annual net loss in rural lands. It’s even calculated at a daily rate. Ranchette communities surrounding roadless areas are growing, dissecting wild lands and cutting off wildlife. Look at Dubois. Private owned land is filling up all around the parks. Jackson hole is full. As long as we’re relying on more people to keep us in corn flakes and cheap tennis shoes, pressure to develop will increase. I used to know a guy who bought a ranch on the south fork, south of Cody. He made no bones about the fact that he or his children would someday subdivide the land and develop it, once suitable interest and utilities were available, the price was right. Metropolitan areas grow spider like into rural spaces along roads. Development follows access. Set asides are merely recognition of the inevitable and the fact that roads are impractical there. People will populate, recreate and we’ll make room for their machines. Wildlife will get run over, become habituated, threaten children, lose migration routes, starve and be displaced. That’s the cycle. I see no reason to think real wildness will come back anywhere it gets hacked up. As long as population grows, nature eventually recedes and is diminished. You want your great great grandchildren to know real wilderness? Build a wilderness ethic in your kids and teach them the virtues of birth control.

No wolf attack happened, no wolf attack was happening, and no wolf attack was likely to happen. Just some kids with guns who got scared by some admittedly unnerving behavior of wild animals that they've probably been taught to fear. Caution and wariness is always needed around unpredictable wild animals, but fear pulls the trigger. Alas we'll never know that the wolves probably would have eventually walked away.