Fish Like a GIRL

Last month I attended the Great Lakes Wolf Symposium in Ashland. It was a three-day event, packed with session after session of wolf research and various other tidbits. Admittedly, not all of us in the room had the same perception of wolves on the landscape. Opinions ran from: They should be allowed anywhere and everywhere, and we need more to we should probably have a little more control over them, just as we do bears or any other top-level predator. Oddly, the only other one we do not manage in the state is the coyote. The Department of Natural Resources largely ignores the species, it seems. Odd, too, that coyotes are responsible for far more deer fawn deaths than any other species. I get the fact that the season is open year-round on them, but there should be something done about their numbers as well. That is likely a topic for another column, however.

First of all, I have to say that it has been far too long since I spent any time on the south shore of the big lake. As a kid I spent some time in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, as my dad was from Ironwood, and his family still lived up there. As I got older, I started traveling farther and farther north and eventually said I aimed to retire on the south shore of Lake Superior. I am not sure that will ever happen, but I have not given up on the thought entirely.

I do not remember the last time I was in Ashland particularly, but it instantly felt like an amazing place to write. Granted, there are a ton of places right here in the Northwoods that bring out a writer’s muse also, but there was something about being a “tourist” for a change that sat well with my mind. Had the symposium afforded me more down time, I would have loved to grab my laptop and sit by the shore of Chequamegon Bay and write for hours, while the wind blew red and yellow leaves around in swirls and cascades and the water lapped at the shores. But alas, that was not to be. Another time, perhaps.

I did get to take quite a nice walk the second morning I was there, however. I attended the conference with my friend Laurie Groskopf from Tomahawk. Among many other things Laurie does, she is one of the driving forces behind Wisconsin Wolf Facts. She has spent over 10,000 hours attending conferences and symposiums and studying about wolves, not just here in the Upper Midwest, but across wolf territory in many parts of the world. We walked for a few miles down the shoreline, me picking her brain about various things relating to wolves. We talked about gardening and hunting and likely solved the world’s problems on that little jaunt. It was refreshing to get out and see some sights before being sequestered into a lecture room at Northland College for the remainder of the day.

I know there have been several readers who have chastised me, thinking I am “anti-wolf.” But honestly, I am no more anti-wolf than I am anti-deer (which I hunt), or anti-fish. But yes, I was one of the people in the audience that was not for allowing wolves to simply be unchecked on the landscape. It is not even good for the wolves themselves, which I think some people miss as part of the point. But my personal thoughts on that, too, is likely a discussion for another day. I have a story here in this week’s Outdoor section that explains a bit more about research on tolerance.

The symposium itself was a really great experience. As I said, there was not much down time, but I did not want to miss any of the sessions, because they all seemed so interesting. It did not disappoint.

On Wednesday evening, at 7 p.m., we were fortunate enough to have Dr. L. David Mech as a keynote speaker. That was truly a treat. For those who may not know, he is the foremost expert on wolves in the country — perhaps the world. Not only that, but he’s an incredible storyteller. I am sure he could have gone on for hours with stories from the field. Hearing him speak made me want to re-read “Wolf Island: Discovering the Secrets of a Mythic Animal.” The book tells the tale of his three summers and winters spent at Isle Royale National Park recording his observations of wolves and moose. Now an iconic story, his research was brand new at the time, as so little was truly known about wolves.

One of the interesting things from his presentation was how technology has changed over the years. We think about it in terms of our own lives with the now ever-present smartphone, or, as I call it, my “electronic leash.” But he made me think about it in research terms as well. They used to capture and tag bears. If the bear was later recaptured or harvested by a hunter, or if by happenstance it was found deceased, they then had information about two places that bear had been. What a great thing at the time! 

It seems silly now, when we have GPS collars that can tell us where an animal is at any given time and can truly track their movements across the landscape — at least until the battery gives out, the collar falls off the animal or any other number of things happen. But back then, knowing two places that an animal had been was big news. 

What is more with Dr. Mech is that he has the ability to get people excited, not only about his research, and all that has come after it, but about wolves as well. I know they are fascinating creatures, and we still know relatively little about a lot of the small things in their lives, but the things researchers are learning are most interesting. None of it changes my mind about thinking they need to be kept in check, and I would run that up my flagpole on any given day. But they are fascinating animals.

If we are honest, are there truly any boring animals? I do not think so. I feel like there are probably more questions than answers where tons of species are concerned. Even as an avid angler of more decades than I care to share, there are still too many things I do not know about bass — things that most, if not all, bass anglers do not know. If we knew everything there was to know — any of us — we would win every tournament out there on every body of water in the country, right?

I guess the biggest impact the symposium had on me was the desire to know more. I want to know more about wolves. I want to know more about the people who study them. I want to know more about the research and how it was conducted. I do not normally get into the methodology of studies on which I report. Quite frankly, it can be a bit dull, and I think if there are readers that want to test the muster of a study, they will likely look it up and read through all of that stuff. But that is something in which I always have great interest.

“There are three types of lies,” an old saying goes. “Lies, damn lies, and statistics.” That is true in every area of science and research. Research can be done on any subject that will lead back to the hypothesis if it is done right (notice I did not say correctly). That said, even the methodology of studies is interesting to me. I simply spare the reader here having to wade through it all. But that faulty methodology can often prove a study inconclusive and lead to it not being published.

I do not present to have an idea about how to bridge the divide caused by wolves. But I do know they are big business. The idea of wolves helps organizations like Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States (which has nothing to do with your local humane society, just so people are aware), make thousands and thousands of dollars a year under the guise of “saving” the wolf. Wolves are actually a great conservation success story. They no longer need saving, in my mind. Again, that does not mean I am for an unregulated season or anything of that sort. I am, however, for people not being afraid to be in their own front yard, or being told they were simply, “at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Beckie Gaskill may be reached at [email protected] or [email protected].