Interview with Yellowstone wolf bio

[JLS]

IF we had indigenous wolves there would NOT be an explosion in numbers. This explosion is NOT logical. The only way to explain this explosion is to have an animal that was NOT part of the ecosystem.

Pure nonsense.  They were put into areas where there was outstanding wolf habitat, with no barriers to expansion and/or colonization. 

Are you telling me that coyotes would not have responded in the same way?

[Bob33]

Conservation organizations like RMEF and MDF worked very hard for decades to create game rich environments and habitat.

Wolves essentially were ushered into a Golden Corral smorgasbord.

I can't understand why anyone would be surprised at their explosive growth.

[KFhunter]

RMEF pissed me off when they took so long to come up with an official stance on wolves, but I've since forgive em 

[Special T]

Since the states were the "Golden Corral"  and wolves "cannot be stopped by rivers or mountain ranges", WHY did they think it would take 50-70 years to repopulate, and since it HAS been documented that there WERE wolves in Washington since at least the 90's(by the WDFW own records) and in MT (since that is where they trans located at least some of them) YET the population explosion took place AFTER the trans location of wolves in YNP and ID, and in ID it was from Canada.

IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out... Unfortunately WA won't figure it out until the WDFW depends upon is funding  from fish and predator hunting.

[idahohuntr]

IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...

I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY. 

[JLS]

Since the states were the "Golden Corral"  and wolves "cannot be stopped by rivers or mountain ranges", WHY did they think it would take 50-70 years to repopulate, and since it HAS been documented that there WERE wolves in Washington since at least the 90's(by the WDFW own records) and in MT (since that is where they trans located at least some of them) YET the population explosion took place AFTER the trans location of wolves in YNP and ID, and in ID it was from Canada.

IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out... Unfortunately WA won't figure it out until the WDFW depends upon is funding  from fish and predator hunting.

 DS: That was a big opinion-based debate by wolf biologists at the time, led by Bob Ream of the University of Montana. In his opinion, wolves would have recovered given enough time—50, 60 or 70 years. Other people think they would not have made it. Yellowstone National Park and the five National Forests around it can be likened to a huge island. It's the most impressive wild land we have got in the lower 48, and some people say it's the most impressive temperate zone wild land in the world. But it's got an abrupt boundary to it. I frequently fly over here in an airplane, and at the boundary of a National Forest, it turns into a sea of humanity. And wolves are notoriously bad at getting through seas of humanity. Wolves get shot a lot. When we were dealing with a handful of wolves, maybe 40 to 60, how many of those would have been heading this way? So far, we have not yet documented a wolf coming from northwest Montana into Yellowstone. We have documented them coming from Idaho, but that's a lot closer and the linkages are better, primarily in the Centennial Mountains. Wolves don't do well over huge landscapes dominated by people. By introducing wolves they were legally not a fully protected species under the Endangered Species Act. People wanted to be able to shoot them when they got into livestock, which they could not have done if they were a fully protected species.


I bolded what I think are some very key points to your questions.  Yes, wolves can travel an extraordinary distance.  However, there is a big difference between wolves traveling a long distance and colonizing, versus just traveling.  Obviously there are barriers there that don't seem like they should be significant, but they are.

There are valleys I hunt in Montana that still don't have any significant numbers of wolves, and they are not that far geographically from YNP.  Why that is, I couldn't answer.  Maybe too much ranchland in between that leads them to trouble and prevents a dispersal?  Probably.

If you were to look at aerials of GNP to NE WA, and then compare them to aerials of GNP to YNP, you would see a marked difference in habitat and nature of the ecosystem.  I am not a wolf expert, but I would speculate that the ideal types of wolf habitat are those found in North Idaho, NW Montana, and NE Washington and it is very easy for wolves to expand and colonize new areas in this type of habitat.  When you begin dealing with island mountain ranges they are much more limited.

If anything, I think the rapid expansion shows that the wolves that were reintroduced were put into a very similar habitat relative to what they were accustomed to.  If they weren't , wouldn't it stand to reason that they would have had a much more difficult time adapting and expanding?

[Special T]

What stopped the wolves in BC from moving south? What prevented wolves from MT to disperse? There are NO large population centers from Central BC to washington state. If you look at a map there are LARGE areas in the Rockies that are not inhabited by anyone, or very loosely populated.

It defies basic logic that wolves are coming from YNP/ID instead of BC. The distance is closer to BC and there is more "continuous" corridors for them to travel/hunt.

As part of my argument i would say the the wolves protected by closing they coyote hunting in the Pasyaden during the 90's was proof of indigenous cascade wolves migrating south.... Despite the presence of those wolves we are asked to believe that those wolves in the middle of some of the best mule deer territory are some how the same kind as the ones spreading from ID and YNP... If anything the wolves in NCWA should have spread and dispersed from there since there were already known wolf packs there. WHY did wolves not explode from the NC cascades? They were in remote areas, plenty of food didn't have to cross any "heavily populated" areas???

How is it that an ISALND of wolves in a park can explode in population VS the connected Wolves in NC WA with a large prey base?

There is ONLY one logical conclusion... The wolves brought into ID/YNP were not the same sub species and/or did not have the same kind of living characteristics that the native ones in the NC WA had. THAT is in direct opposition to what the Bio stated.

The hypothesis used by this bio does not work, and it cannot because it does NOT work with the wolves that have been PROVEN to be here BEFORE the "Recovery".

[KFhunter]

We need these guys on it

http://www.mcsoccp.org/joomla/


 

[KFhunter]

I won't rule out transplanted wolves,  I can't. 

It's documented in other instances all throughout the United States so to think it did not happen here is stretching it.


From transplanting Red Wolves in the Carolina's to Mexican wolves down south, it's verified, admitted too, and easy to google.  The Red's were unsuccessful in establishing themselves, but they're raising more in pens to try again later as I type this.

Why then are folks so adamant that Gray's weren't transplanted in the PNW?  It's illogical when it's proven to have happened elsewhere.



but I digress, it doesn't matter now they're here so we need to ramp up public pressure to get them fully de-listed and on the hunting regs with very liberal seasons and bag limits.
Even then it won't cull the population or save the Elk, but if they're hunted they'll avoid people and industry (cattle) and that is a start.


 

[JLS]

What stopped the wolves in BC from moving south? What prevented wolves from MT to disperse? There are NO large population centers from Central BC to washington state. If you look at a map there are LARGE areas in the Rockies that are not inhabited by anyone, or very loosely populated.

The areas in the Rockies that are very loosely populated often have large ranches in them.  Wolves + ranches = trouble, which under the EXPERIMENTAL listing allowed for those problem wolves to be shot.

It defies basic logic that wolves are coming from YNP/ID instead of BC. The distance is closer to BC and there is more "continuous" corridors for them to travel/hunt.

Who said the wolves came from YNP?  It is an easy migration from the Frank up through the Selway to north ID and then into WA.  I'm sure some are coming from southern BC too.  I guess I'm confused as to your argument?

As part of my argument i would say the the wolves protected by closing they coyote hunting in the Pasyaden during the 90's was proof of indigenous cascade wolves migrating south.... Despite the presence of those wolves we are asked to believe that those wolves in the middle of some of the best mule deer territory are some how the same kind as the ones spreading from ID and YNP... If anything the wolves in NCWA should have spread and dispersed from there since there were already known wolf packs there. WHY did wolves not explode from the NC cascades? They were in remote areas, plenty of food didn't have to cross any "heavily populated" areas???

How is it that an ISALND of wolves in a park can explode in population VS the connected Wolves in NC WA with a large prey base?

Because the island of wolves is surrounded by a huge wilderness with a lot of elk, no ranches, and very few roads.  If you look at the expansion pattern out of YNP, you'll see that some areas definitely favored wolf movement over others.  There are several mountain ranges in Montana that have a lot of elk and no wolves.  Sometimes the why is not always easily explainable.

The Frank Church is another example of a large wilderness, no roads, no ranches, and a large prey base.  It's much easier to find a safe route for expansion when there is 360 degrees worth, verus one or two river corridors.


There is ONLY one logical conclusion... The wolves brought into ID/YNP were not the same sub species and/or did not have the same kind of living characteristics that the native ones in the NC WA had. THAT is in direct opposition to what the Bio stated.

I still have no idea how you are drawing this single conclusion, I'll agree to disagree.  It seems completely illogical to me.  As I stated, these wolves were obviously very similar in living characteristics as they didn't miss a beat because they didn't have to relearn and adapt to completely different environment.

The hypothesis used by this bio does not work, and it cannot because it does NOT work with the wolves that have been PROVEN to be here BEFORE the "Recovery".

So it was speculated that it would take 50-70 years for this expansion to happen without translocation.  I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that it could be reduced to 1/2 to 1/3 with translocation.  I don't see how any hypothesis was disproved at all.  Again, agree to disagree.

[idahohuntr]

but I digress, it doesn't matter now they're here so we need to ramp up public pressure to get them fully de-listed and on the hunting regs with very liberal seasons and bag limits.
Even then it won't cull the population or save the Elk, but if they're hunted they'll avoid people and industry (cattle) and that is a start.

 

[Special T]

IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...

I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.

I think WY had it figured out because they have LESS wolves in the state than ID or MT AND they are confined to a smaller portion of the state because they are shot like coyotes in the rest of the state. WY did not subjegate itself to the Feds like ID and MT did. YES they have to "pay" for thier management, but i thin the feds $ is a poisen pill.

[pianoman9701]

By now, you're correct JLS; it doesn't matter from where they're coming. The smaller indigenous wolves are dead and the larger Canadian wolves are free to roam either from ID, MT and YNP, or come down from Canada, as you pointed out. If we were really concerned with endangered species, we should be killing all of the larger ones to save the smaller ones but apparently the purpose of the ESA isn't to save endangered indigenous species after all. It's to forward radical environmental agendas. Who'd have thought that? Oh yeah, most of us.

[JLS]

IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...

I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.

I think WY had it figured out because they have LESS wolves in the state than ID or MT AND they are confined to a smaller portion of the state because they are shot like coyotes in the rest of the state. WY did not subjegate itself to the Feds like ID and MT did. YES they have to "pay" for thier management, but i thin the feds $ is a poisen pill.

I would say the primary reason they have fewer wolves is the nature of Wyoming's habitat versus that of Idaho and Montana.  It simply is apples to oranges to try and compare the two when you look at Wyoming's vast expanses of rangeland that separate the mountain ranges.  If you look at similar parts of Montana you will also find fewer wolves than in other parts of the state.  Same with Idaho, I don't hear much about wolves in the Owhyee Country and probably never will to any great extent.

Montana could make it a shoot on sight area in eastern 1/2 of the state, but there is no need to.  They'll either get shot by licensed hunters or shot when they are near livestock.  It's purely semantics.

[JLS]

By now, you're correct JLS; it doesn't matter from where they're coming. The smaller indigenous wolves are dead and the larger Canadian wolves are free to roam either from ID, MT and YNP, or come down from Canada, as you pointed out. If we were really concerned with endangered species, we should be killing all of the larger ones to save the smaller ones but apparently the purpose of the ESA isn't to save endangered indigenous species after all. It's to forward radical environmental agendas. Who'd have thought that? Oh yeah, most of us.

The weights of all of the harvested wolves in the Rockies have been well within the range of what was documented in the past.