collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves  (Read 3413 times)

Offline mountainman1

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 203
  • Location: North Central Washington
  • Sometimes we all have a bad day
Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves
« on: January 23, 2014, 08:13:47 PM »
Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves




*Editor’s Note* – There has always been discussion about whether there existed a population of native wolves in the Montana, Idaho and Wyoming area before Canadian gray wolves were introduced into Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Most will concur that “native” wolves, those that migrated down from Canada, had taken up residence in Northwestern Montana. Fewer would agree or acknowledge Idaho already had a population of “native” wolves and was well on its way toward recovery. It has also been widely discussed that there are major differences in size and habits between Idaho’s “native” wolf and the introduced Canadian gray wolf.
Below is an email I received today that was initially sent to someone whose name I have “Xed” out. The email is from Tim Kemery who was involved from the mid-1980 to the mid-1990s, in tracking and mapping native wolves in Idaho. He claims that his work was delivered to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before introduction of Canadian wolves. (Note: In the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the actual wolf introduction, claims were made that any wolves found in the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment (NRMDPS) were loner wolves or just passing through with no established packs. This same information has been used repeatedly in subsequent lawsuits about wolves and the Endangered Species Act. Please note that it is a violation of the ESA to introduce a non native species where a native species already exists.)
It has often been discussed at to whether this documented information was deliberately hidden or overlooked in order that introduction take place. Mr. Kemery alludes to that in this email.
However, the importance of this email is that, 1.) It provides more proof that a native population of wolves was habituating Idaho, and 2.) There is a disturbing difference in habits as has been observed by Mr. Kemery and documented below.
Comparison of Wolf Varieties

PRE-INTRODUCTION RESIDENT WOLVES: WOLVES OBSERVED THREW “1995? IN IDAHO.
* Highly secretive behavior. Very sensitive to roads and highways. Largely nocturnal.
* Usually found either as dispersed individuals or pairs.
* Packing activity was very rare except during the months of January-February.
* Pack size at breeding time was usually 4-7 individuals.
* Females (breeding bitches) retained pups for an average of 18 months.
* Pack dispersal was very consistent after breeding season.
* Litter size consistently was 1-3 pups. Bitch bred at 2-year old stage.
* Extremely selective as to food source. Rarely fed on old carcasses or kills of other species, except in the most harsh winter conditions.
* Very much an opportunist when different prey was available. Spent great percentage of hunting effort on rodent acquisition, (moles to rabbits).
* Sport-Reflex Killing almost negligible. Most ungulate depredation was consumptive, not surplus. Typical kill had hams and shoulders consumed.
* Territory of individual or pairs was quite large. Average 2 week return cycle.
* Wolf body size: Female 55 lbs.-70 lbs. Male 85 lbs.-105 lbs.
* Competition with other predator species including coyote and fox was low. Other canine species co-existed and thrived in presence of Resident Wolves.
* Habitat utilized consistently: Mid to high elevation, with forest and mixed forest. Resident Wolves were very resistive to utilizing large areas of open range land with grass or sagebrush cover.
* Older mature males almost always solitary except at breeding intervals.
* Conflict with domestic dogs very minimal except in rare cases.
* Livestock depredations extremely rare but do occur in remote areas.
* Consistent avoidance of man made structures, roads, vehicles, and humans.
NOTE: This data as well as maps locating individual wolves, as well as breeding pairs was hand delivered to Craig Groves in 1992, and entered into the Idaho Fish and Game’s Conservation Data Base by George Stephens.
Craig Groves was at the time in charge of oversight of the Conservation Data Base for Idaho Fish and Game, and was an Idaho Fish and Game employee.
NON NATIVE WOLF Observed Criterion: Introduced Canadian Grey Wolf, 1996 to present.
* Exhibits low level of fear of humans. Non-secretive behavior. Minimal avoidance of humans, vehicles, domestic animals. Will cross large open terrain at will even when other options for cover are available.
* Canadian Grey Wolf is found in small to very large pack sizes. Small packs of 5 individuals are common as are large packs with over 20 members.
* Pack merging, the condition of 2 or more packs combining is being observed in many areas in the west and is not uncommon. Merged packs of over 40 wolves have been observed in the Central Idaho Wilderness.
* Females (breeding bitches) can be bred even at 1-year of age, and produce from 5-9 pups per season. The pups usually remain with the pack but can disperse or be driven off by other pack members.
* All females of breeding potential in the pack are usually bred. There is absolutely no indication that any females are kept from breeding by the theoretical “Alpha-female.” Large packs are quickly produced and can disperse and merge several times within a week.
* Canadian Grey Wolves show a diet preference for elk but will switch at will to a secondary prey species. Low preference is shown for rodent species, but wolves do sporadically hunt rodents.
* Sport-Reflex Killing is highly developed in Canadian Grey packs. From observations in the field, 3-5 ungulates are killed for each ungulate consumed. This surplus killing is greatly increased if the pack size is large or packs have merged. Often small wintering herds of deer or elk are completely extirpated in one hunting event.
* Body Size: Females 60 lbs.-85 lbs. Males 90 lbs.-120 lbs.
* Competition with other predatory species is extreme and often fatal. Both mountain lion and bear have been impacted by attacks and from reduced available prey. Other Canines such as Coyotes and Fox have been severely impacted in most of their habitats. Fox are only able to survive in habitats that include lots of willow or dense underbrush. Coyote populations have been reduced by are persisting at lower than historic levels.
* Canadian Grey Wolves have been found to utilize all available habitats, from high elevation alpine to sagebrush deserts. This has allowed this variety of wolf to be opportunistic in all ecosystems available to it.
* Large mature male wolves remain with the pack threw out the year, sometimes dispersing for short periods of time.
* The Canadian Grey Wolf is highly predatory on all domestic canines. Hunting hounds are especially vulnerable to attacks and are usually killed outright in a confrontation by wolves.
* Canadian Grey Wolves have shown a preference for predating on domestic livestock even with abundant natural prey present. Beef calves are the most common victims of wolf depredation.
* Canadian Grey Wolves show a high level of habituation to humans, and man-made structures. It is not uncommon to find Canadian Grey Wolves in very remote areas eating out of dog dishes and coming onto porches of homes when the owners are present.
It is clear from a comparison of the two varieties of wolves that control efforts will have to take into account the realities of dealing with a wolf as different as the Canadian Grey Wolf is from wolves found in other parts of the continent. Both the high fecundity of the Canadian Grey Wolf and its depredating qualities ensures that control efforts will have to be highly organized and long term if we are to protect our magnificent wildlife from the debacle that is ongoing in Canada and in our western states.
Mrs. XXXXX, I will not in this email go into the fraud and corruption that brought us to this wildlife disaster, but suffice it to say that had the Federal Agencies not been corrupt in dealing with the information given them by Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming citizens we would by now have had a recovered Resident wolf population that would still need to be managed, but we would not have what we have now with the very existence of our ungulates hanging in the balance, and wolf borne diseases threatening our way of life. If possible and time permits I will fill you in later on how our investigation turned out, and who
was responsible for purging our maps and data from the Conservation Data Base, and carrying out the introduction of the Canadian Grey Wolf, in direct violation of the Endangered Species Act. It is a very tragic story, but God willing we will turn this around!
Yours, Mr. Kemery
Tim Kemery is a professional trapper and did the mapping work for the IDFG Wolverine Study. He also mapped the Pre-Introduction Resident Wolves, and hand-delivered those maps of 18 resident wolves to Craig Groves at IDFG, Conservation Data Base, then the Heritage Center. Tim Kemery graduated from the U of I with a B.S. in Range Science in 1982.
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2011/0 … ay-wolves/


Which Wolf Is The Right Wolf? Pt 1
http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publis … Wolf.shtml


Which Wolf Is The Right Wolf? Pt 2
http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publis … Pt_2.shtml

Offline mountainman1

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 203
  • Location: North Central Washington
  • Sometimes we all have a bad day
Re: Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2014, 08:21:09 PM »
Violations of Law associated with and generated by Wolf Introduction and Protection.
The following alleged criminal activities are divided into two groups. First are those violations directly associated with the introduction and protection of wolves. Second are those violations that were attempts to cover up past criminal activity and assure future support from all those associated with federal wolf activities.
A. Violations directly associated with wolf introduction.
1. The theft (misappropriation, diversion) and misuse by USFWS Administrators of at least $60 Million from the Pittman – Robertson excise taxes in Fiscal Years 1995, and 1996. …
2. Supplementing federal Appropriations with illegal funds. …
3. Introducing wolves from Canada into Yellowstone National Park after the US Congress had refused to Appropriate funds for or to Authorize such action. …
4. Failure to file Wildlife Importation Forms (Form 3-177) upon importing wolves from Canada into the United States for release soon thereafter in Yellowstone National Park. …
5. The failure of USFWS to describe the impacts, costs, and dangers to be expected if and when wolves were introduced and protected as Listed Endangered Species in the Lower 48 States. …
* Historical records of wolves attacking and killing soldiers, children, homesteaders, and Natives (as mentioned in Stanley Young’s Wolves of North America) were ignored.
* International records of human attacks and livestock and wildlife losses (as described later from available documents in Will Graves’ Wolves in Russia) were ignored. Human attacks were denied and ignored and it was even claimed that there were NO such attacks in North America.
* Human, wildlife, and livestock dangers from wolf-borne disease were ignored while the steady discovery of health hazards to people, wildlife, pets, and livestock from wolves has grown exponentially. Wolves carry and spread over 30 infectious diseases, nearly all of which are hazardous to humans.
* Expected Big Game animal losses were totally distorted and made into nothing while the results are catastrophic.
* Livestock losses were underestimated and the fact that any taking or harassment of wolves (except in only the most extreme and provable circumstances where a human life was in extreme danger) in protection of private property would be met with draconian – felony and extreme federal enforcement – penalties was not mentioned.
* Promises in initial documents to not allow any number over X by state have been disregarded and implied “return of management to states” in truth has and will only mean Federally “approved” (and changeable) Plans that “permit” State governments (only temporarily and under changeable goals and processes) to implement “approved plans” as changing federal political winds dictate.
* Control and management costs of expanding wolf populations to state and federal budgets received no realistic treatment.
* Current costs to farmers and ranchers, to say nothing of current total federal costs annually are not available and are downplayed when requested.
* Costs incurred by state governments and local economies due to the loss of hunting opportunity and all the revenue and wildlife management it generated were nowhere anticipated or described realistically.
* Anticipated loss of large-scale familial and cultural family hunting and other outdoor traditions was neither mentioned nor quantified in the impacts expected from the release and protection of wolves.
* The loss of ranches, livestock production, and the significant diminishment of rural economies were ignored and are still denied by those responsible.
6. The entire relationship, going back to the early 1990’s between USFWS and the Defenders of Wildlife (an organization that since its inception has been a foe of USFWS programs as evidenced by lawsuits and opposition publicly to Federal and State fish and wildlife management and use programs as well as the ownership and use of wildlife by US citizens) is one that bears close examination. …
7. Can items 1 through 6 be combined in whole or in part to indicate a Conspiracy either among federal employees or between federal employees and others, like DOW?
8. If USFWS empowers DOW to compensate livestock owners for provable loss of their property (livestock) how can it (USFWS) refuse to similarly compensate dog owners or other animal owners for the provable loss of their property to wolves? Similarly how can the federal government that introduced, protected, and spread the wolves not be liable for human attacks by wolves? What of the loss of huntable animal populations to federal wolves…
B. Violations resulting from and associated with a cover-up of past criminal activity associated with the wolf introduction or in furtherance of current and future cooperation to ensure the continued expansion of areas supporting wolf populations.
1. Fifteen plus or minus years (mid 1980’s to late 1990’s) failure of USFWS to audit state fish and wildlife agencies’ compliance with excise tax expenditures and other requirements to continue receiving such Wildlife Restoration funding. …
2. State audit discrepancy cover-up of State irregularities in excise tax expenditures and the illegal “hiring” of the US Department of the Interior Inspector General as a contractor by USFWS an agency under the purview of that Inspector General. …
3. Stolen excise tax dollars were never replaced. …
4. Using tax money to bribe a witness aware of government theft of funds to keep quiet. …
So there you have at least 12 actual or likely law violations associated with the introduction, protection, and spread of wolves in the Lower 48 states. I accuse federal bureaucrats, state bureaucrats, non-governmental organizations, Washington lobbyists, and even myself. It was a sordid affair and it has only grown worse. The “losers” thus far are ranchers, hunters, dog owners, rural residents (especially parents, children, and the elderly), local and state governments, and American Constitutional government. The “winners”, although many have gone onto higher salaries and more power, have yet to be determined. When those of us that have been “losers” to date turn this government excess train around we will be the “winners” because we will know where apathy led us and we will never let this happen again.
Jim Beers
May 2010

Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3601
Re: Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2014, 08:45:24 PM »
Then there is this from the WDFW website: 

Aren’t the wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone non-native or different from earlier wolves?

No. There is no factual basis to the belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states.

Wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data demonstrates that the wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mixed with wolves from Idaho and Montana, along with those from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information illustrates that wolves form a single population across the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and southern Canada.

Recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in reintroductions into Yellowstone.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline idahohuntr

  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3601
Re: Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2014, 09:08:37 PM »
 :chuckle: Genetically identical would be an exact clone of an organism or identical twins in humans.  WDFW is using common terminology so that the average person can read and understand the issue.  :tup:

*This post was in response to a post by KF that he has now deleted*
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 10:25:21 PM by idahohuntr »
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - TR

Offline sebek556

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 2603
  • Location: ne,wa
Re: Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2014, 09:21:46 PM »
Yeah and we are genetically symaliar to chimps but you don't see them on a hunting form saying how great these genetically symaliar wolves are...

Offline bearpaw

  • Family, Friends, Outdoors
  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2009
  • Posts: 38437
  • Location: Idaho<->Colville
  • "Rather Be Cougar Huntin"
    • http://www.facebook.com/DaleDenney
    • Bearpaw Outfitters
  • Groups: NRA, SCI, F4WM, NWTF, IOGA, MOGA, CCOC, BBB, RMEF, WSTA, WSB
Re: Native Rocky Mountain Wolves v. Introduced Canadian Gray Wolves
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2014, 09:23:45 PM »
Yeah and we are genetically symaliar to chimps but you don't see them on a hunting form saying how great these genetically symaliar wolves are...

 :chuckle:
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups & quit losing opportunity!

http://bearpawoutfitters.com Guided Hunts, Unguided, & Drop Camps in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wash. Hunts with tags available (no draw needed) for spring bear, fall bear, bison, cougar, elk, mule deer, turkey, whitetail, & wolf! http://trophymaps.com DIY Hunting Maps are also offered

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Resetting dash warning lights by HUNTINCOUPLE
[Today at 09:57:43 PM]


alkali elk special hunt by Rainier10
[Today at 09:17:12 PM]


Wyoming elk who's in? by Ghost Hunter
[Today at 08:56:09 PM]


Oregon Seed #'s by Brute
[Today at 08:54:20 PM]


What's flatbed pickup life like? by Happy Gilmore
[Today at 08:38:50 PM]


Idaho General Season Going to Draw for Nonresidents by baldopepper
[Today at 08:08:06 PM]


The time clock has started.....and go. by KNOPHISH
[Today at 07:31:05 PM]


Please Report Problems & Bugs Here by Rainier10
[Today at 07:23:55 PM]


Colorado Results by vandeman17
[Today at 02:29:43 PM]


Burrowing Animal by b0bbyg
[Today at 12:43:47 PM]


Cold bore or fouled barrel. by hunter399
[Today at 12:36:22 PM]


DIY Ucluelet trip by CP
[Today at 05:48:15 AM]


Oregon spring bear by time2hunt
[Yesterday at 08:03:28 PM]


WDFW falsely advertising preference points by hunter399
[Yesterday at 04:38:43 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal