Interview with Yellowstone wolf bio

[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.

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

I was actually talking about the wolves indigenous to WA. However, if you're saying the Canadian wolves that they dropped in YNP are no different from the wolves that were there before, I'd have to say that numerous sources with more biological bona fides than I vehemently disagree with you. Are you really saying that the Canadian grey wolf is the same size as the wolves that were here historically? You can't be.

[Special T]

ID imported wolves from the McKenzie valley just like the YNP. I did not say the came from YNP specifically just that they have come from the E not the N. 

"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."

Roads and Ranches did not stop wolves from moving from ID to NC WA despite their presence.  IF the absence of Roads and Ranches WERE the key (Which i greatly dispute) then the wolf population from the Pasadena should have exploded.

"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."

This is a straw man argument. If it were so easy for the wolves to be hunted, shot, and numbers controlled ID & MT would not be suffering the effects of so many wolves.

[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.

I was actually talking about the wolves indigenous to WA. However, if you're saying the Canadian wolves that they dropped in YNP are no different from the wolves that were there before, I'd have to say that numerous sources with more biological bona fides than I vehemently disagree with you. Are you really saying that the Canadian grey wolf is the same size as the wolves that were here historically? You can't be.

Well, MT FWP reports that the average adult male harvested weighed 91 pounds.  Per Toby Bridges claims that the "original wolves" in the Rockies topped out at between 90 to 100 pounds, what argument is there to the claims that these are much larger wolves?

[JLS]

ID imported wolves from the McKenzie valley just like the YNP. I did not say the came from YNP specifically just that they have come from the E not the N. 

"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."

Roads and Ranches did not stop wolves from moving from ID to NC WA despite their presence.  IF the absence of Roads and Ranches WERE the key (Which i greatly dispute) then the wolf population from the Pasadena should have exploded.

"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."

This is a straw man argument. If it were so easy for the wolves to be hunted, shot, and numbers controlled ID & MT would not be suffering the effects of so many wolves.

Straw man right back at you.  I already told you that there are mountain ranges in Montana that are only a couple hundred miles or ess from YNP that have a LOT of elk, that have no or very few wolves.  Why?  Who knows.  Obviously the patterns and methods by which they disperse and colonize are not just A then B then C.

Sometimes it's a simple matter of livestock conflicts and the pack is removed.  Other times, they don't get into trouble and you never hear from them. 

I hunt in very close proximity to YNP.  I did not see a wolf in 16 days in the field last year.  Tell me there are so many wolves?  We saw elk nearly every day, they bugled day and night, and they were not huddled in the Wal Mart parking lot.

http://www.sej.org/sites/default/files/AwardsWinners/june6wolves.pdf

According to this, the wolves in the Methow came from BC, not YNP.

[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.

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

I was actually talking about the wolves indigenous to WA. However, if you're saying the Canadian wolves that they dropped in YNP are no different from the wolves that were there before, I'd have to say that numerous sources with more biological bona fides than I vehemently disagree with you. Are you really saying that the Canadian grey wolf is the same size as the wolves that were here historically? You can't be.

Well, MT FWP reports that the average adult male harvested weighed 91 pounds.  Per Toby Bridges claims that the "original wolves" in the Rockies topped out at between 90 to 100 pounds, what argument is there to the claims that these are much larger wolves?

Plenty of argument. Just to cite an example, here's a picture out of the ID Observer of a wolf shot in ID said to be 180 lbs. http://proliberty.com/observer/20090623.htm

This article from Canadian Geographic puts adult male greys at up to 70 kilos, or 154 lbs. http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/wildlife-nature/?path=english/species/grey-wolf. Perhaps we've been very selective about getting only the smaller wolves out of Canada?

[pianoman9701]

This article from National Geographic puts them at up to 79 kilos, or 173+ lbs. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/wolf/

[pianoman9701]

The wolves we have now came from Canada. Every legitimate source I can find says that canis lupus is well over 100 lbs for the fully grown males.

[JLS]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/

Here is data from Idaho, funny how similar it is to Montana's.

https://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL0000348.pdf

Here is information from Wyoming Game and Fish, they too state similar sizes.

The funny thing is, I don't hear anyone calling for the removal of the Blue Mountain elk herd, when it's been well known and publicized that they have Roosevelt genes within the herd, which were not indigenous to the Blues.  Elk from YNP have been moved all over the U.S.  Bighorn sheep from Canada and Wyoming have been moved all over. 

It makes the arguement look pretty silly in my opinion, when hunters try to pick and choose and claim that one situation is entirely different than the other.  Look at whitetailed deer.  Their sizes vary drastically across the US, but they are still the same species.  If you took a large Alberta whitetail and put it in Georgia, it probably wouldn't do well.  Same with a Texas brush country whitetail going to Eastern Montana.  However, if you took a Colorado alpine mule deer and put it in the North Cascades, I'm willing to bet they would do just fine.  Same with a Kansas plains whitetail to the Palouse.  Would the sizes be exactly the same?  No, but the specificity to the habitat would be.

[pianoman9701]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/

Here is data from Idaho, funny how similar it is to Montana's.

https://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL0000348.pdf

Here is information from Wyoming Game and Fish, they too state similar sizes.

The funny thing is, I don't hear anyone calling for the removal of the Blue Mountain elk herd, when it's been well known and publicized that they have Roosevelt genes within the herd, which were not indigenous to the Blues.  Elk from YNP have been moved all over the U.S.  Bighorn sheep from Canada and Wyoming have been moved all over. 

It makes the arguement look pretty silly in my opinion, when hunters try to pick and choose and claim that one situation is entirely different than the other.  Look at whitetailed deer.  Their sizes vary drastically across the US, but they are still the same species.  If you took a large Alberta whitetail and put it in Georgia, it probably wouldn't do well.  Same with a Texas brush country whitetail going to Eastern Montana.  However, if you took a Colorado alpine mule deer and put it in the North Cascades, I'm willing to bet they would do just fine.  Same with a Kansas plains whitetail to the Palouse.  Would the sizes be exactly the same?  No, but the specificity to the habitat would be.

I don't pick and choose. They should all be removed. I'm not alone in that, either.

[JLS]

"They" being what?

Should we remove all transplanted elk, antelope, bighorns, mountain goats, turkeys, chukars, pheasants, etc?

[pianoman9701]

It depends. Are they eating ungulates? If so, yes. I'm done. Have a nice day.

[bearpaw]

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 SpecialT has it right. Wyoming has by far the most reasonable wolf plan that puts the fewest wolves in their state. Washington has the worst plan. That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. 

[bearpaw]

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.

  At least most of us can probably agree on this!

[bearpaw]

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.

Not exactly correct. In WY wolves can be shot on sight in 80% of the state. Their management plan is designed to keep wolves confined more to the park and nearby wilderness. A much different management philosophy than the other states. 

[JLS]

Special T, take a look at the map at the end of this document.  The harvest locations mirror exactly what I was trying to explain, but probably didn't do a very good job of.  Note how few wolves were harvested in the middle third of the state?  There are mountains and thousands of elk there.  Why haven't they colonized those areas?