Interview with Yellowstone wolf bio

[JLS]

That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. 

I think this is kind of a condescending statement.  If they want wolves how is that rolling over? 

I certainly think they are misinformed, in that the majority of the public thinks that their tax dollars supports wildlife, not license sales and PR money.

[bearpaw]

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.

Actually that's the best rationalization I have seen. I'm not saying I agree, but it is a fair statement. I really think we need to get past worrying about which wolf or which elk is where since both have already multiplied and spread widely. At this point we need more aggressive management because wolves are multiplying, ungulates are being eaten, livestock is being eaten, and wolves are being trained that they have no reason to fear humans. The sooner we manage wolves, especially in the northeast, the sooner we will assure that our moose, elk, and deer herds don't disappear.

[bearpaw]

That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. 

I think this is kind of a condescending statement.  If they want wolves how is that rolling over? 

I certainly think they are misinformed, in that the majority of the public thinks that their tax dollars supports wildlife, not license sales and PR money.

I think that was the quickest way to describe what has happened, wolf groups got their way because everyone else let them. 

Sure, I understand it's more complex than that, but essentially that's what we get when people think they can make these groups happy.

[Special T]

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?

The wolves mostly stuck to the Rocky Mountains...

So why did the wolves not spread DOWN the Cascades Since they were there first, and from your explanation that would weem the logical line of progression?

[bearpaw]

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?

The wolves mostly stuck to the Rocky Mountains...

So why did the wolves not spread DOWN the Cascades Since they were there first, and from your explanation that would weem the logical line of progression?

That was 2011, look at 2013 harvest locations, I'm pretty sure you will see some farther east, it's just in the last few years that wolves are expanding into central Montana, they simply weren't many there yet in 2011. It's a mute argument.

[Special T]

Even so BP using the logic given to ME/us wolves from the 90's should have spread south. What is the explanation for it?

[JLS]

Pretty similar results.

[bearpaw]

Even so BP using the logic given to ME/us wolves from the 90's should have spread south. What is the explanation for it?

If you are referring to the Cascades I think the same reason holds true, wolves simply have not migrated south much until now.

There are likely several reasons, I don't think previous wolves formed as large of packs as the northern wolves that were brought in so they may not have been as successful at reprodiucing, poaching may have limited their numbers for many years, perhaps genetic diversity was a factor until more wolves migrated in and made reproduction more successful. It does appear that the wolves that are moving south are doing just fine now.

I do know that wolves were not talked about that much in central MT until the last two years, now everyone there is talking about them because they are moving in and being seen more often.

[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.

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. 

Wyoming folks were the ones that prevented us from hunting wolves in 2010 in Idaho and Montana because they would not submit a reasonable wolf plan to USFWS.  MT and ID were way ahead of the curve in realizing that you can sit on the sidelines and cry and whine about how unfair it is or you can submit a reasonable plan and start managing/hunting wolves.  So, No, Wyoming was not ahead of ID and MT...I'd say they were a couple years late to helping do anything to harvest them.

[Special T]

Just because WY played hard ball while ID & MT tired to get along doesnt mean that WY didn't come out better in the end. I think that was a play by the feds to pressure WY, ID & MT. I bet that if the 3 states had hung in tight together they would have been much better off than they are now.

[idahohuntr]

Just because WY played hard ball while ID & MT tired to get along doesnt mean that WY didn't come out better in the end. I think that was a play by the feds to pressure WY, ID & MT. I bet that if the 3 states had hung in tight together they would have been much better off than they are now.

What would be different/better in Idaho if they played it like Wyoming?  Were the feds going to come in and collect every last wolf and move them back to Canada?  Under management in Idaho you can kill 5 wolves a year, trap them, hunt them over most of the year etc.  The IDFG can hire gunners, trappers, aerial removal etc.  What would be different? I believe MT is similar in their liberal harvest and management tools.  I don't see where Wyoming has a better deal. 

In the end, if Idaho and Montana had played like WY, then the several hundred wolves harvested by hunters in 2009 and 2011 would not have occurred and you would have more wolves today.  Wyoming's hunts didn't start until 2012...once they figured out their little tantrum was not getting them anywhere.   

[Special T]

If they had adopted those liberal seasons earlier they would still have wolves, but they would still have THOUSANDS more elk  because they would have not let the wolf numbers grow to thier current state.

Have you ever had rats? If there are rats in the area(like where i live) they will always be around. If you ignore them they soon overcome any and all barriers you put in thier way because there are so many of them. IF you place poisen, and traps out even tho there arn't really many around you will likely never get an infestation. Will you see rat turds? Yep. Will you see the occasional rat? Yep. If you do the easy things to kill them off will you still see them? Yep, however you won't have the same problems your neighbors do. 

[bearpaw]

Just because WY played hard ball while ID & MT tired to get along doesnt mean that WY didn't come out better in the end. I think that was a play by the feds to pressure WY, ID & MT. I bet that if the 3 states had hung in tight together they would have been much better off than they are now.

What would be different/better in Idaho if they played it like Wyoming?  Were the feds going to come in and collect every last wolf and move them back to Canada?  Under management in Idaho you can kill 5 wolves a year, trap them, hunt them over most of the year etc.  The IDFG can hire gunners, trappers, aerial removal etc.  What would be different? I believe MT is similar in their liberal harvest and management tools.  I don't see where Wyoming has a better deal. 

In the end, if Idaho and Montana had played like WY, then the several hundred wolves harvested by hunters in 2009 and 2011 would not have occurred and you would have more wolves today.  Wyoming's hunts didn't start until 2012...once they figured out their little tantrum was not getting them anywhere.

Idaho and Montana went along with allowing wolves throughout the state. In WY wolves are shot on sight in 80% of the state and WY has the fewest wolves of the three NRM states, WY definitely benefited by holding out for stricter management. Here in WA they opted to spread wolves throughout the state and went for 15 BP's which is more liberal than any of the states, all the others only have 10 BP's in their plan. 

[Special T]

It should also be noted that they are "Documented" packs which means you have a bunch more than the requirement. There are many ways to skin a cat the documentation game can be slowed by hiring people with little experience, don't provide adequate funding, make the conditions so tight that it makes it really difficult to prove.

Wolves are like coyotes in the sense that as long as there is prey you can shoot/trap a bunch of them and they keep coming back.

[bearpaw]

It should also be noted that they are "Documented" packs which means you have a bunch more than the requirement. There are many ways to skin a cat the documentation game can be slowed by hiring people with little experience, don't provide adequate funding, make the conditions so tight that it makes it really difficult to prove.

Hhhmmm, exactly, sounds like WDFW trapper hiring requirements, no wonder they have documented so few of our wolves, they've got some trappers with degrees but with little or no actual trapping experience.