The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves

[jackelope]

For the defenders of wolves naturally "migrating" to every corner of Washington state...why did these northern, southern B.C., Idaho wolves, (or wherever the daily opinion says they are from..oh yeah, science facts..) wait so many years to suddenly, and miraculously appear in the last few years? Why do we have warnings to keep pets and children inside up the Squillchuck here in Chelan@ county? Why, when warning shot fired up Pitcher canyon, the wolves continued to approach? Are they habituated to humans? How about the wolf shot in self defence up Harts pass? Habituated also? That story would have hit the news big time if it wasn't credible, wouldn't. It? Wolves roaming the edges of city limits in Wenatchee? Not your normal behavior of a" natural, migrated" wolf? Again, some will believe what they are spoon fed from the" specialists"...Like so many political issues...people need to learn to believe what they see, rather then what they are told..BTW Jackelope, reading back thru. These wolf topics, I read more sarcasm from those on the left of this issue, than from Wolfbait...just an observation..please re-read...

I don't need to reread anything. At this point in these discussions from me, there's nothing but sarcasm. I am wide open to admitting that. There's no point in trying anything else. Also I wouldn't necessarily say I'm "on the left of this issue". I have said before and I'll say it again. I would be Wolfbait's biggest supporter if he would provide the evidence he has been saying he has for the last 5 years. Aside from him calling me names, I have absolutely nothing against the guy. There's no need to call people names but aside from that...I admire his passion on this topic. Seriously, I do. I have just learned that there is no point in taking anything he says about his evidence conspiracy theory seriously because he hasn't backed up the evidence he's been preaching about for years now.

Your comments about wolves habituated to people...
Warning shots...just because an animal doesn't run at the sound of rifle shots means he is habituated to people? Have you ever seen a deer not run at the sound of a gun shot?

Wolves roaming around the city limits...are all the deer, lions, bears, rockchucks, bobcats, etc all habituated to people too because they're roaming around the city limits? How is that indicative of a wolf that was relocated in a truck versus one that walked there on it's own 4 legs?

I'm not sure how the wolf shot at Hart's Pass is indicative of a wolf habituated to humans. Bears attack people in the middle of nowhere where there is little to no human contact. How is that a sign of them being habituated to people?

[timberfaller]

"but I think you and wolfy are so confused about your different conspiracies you don't even know which way is up anymore.  "

Nice try but no banana for you!

If your ever in the Methow  hunter,  and you come up to a green pickup with exempt plates way back on a USFS road, and a fellow in a uniform comes back to your rig and threatens you with arrest,  I would do as he says.   Forget about the "dog carriers" in the bed, YOU saw nothing, nothing at all!!  YOUR eyes are just fooling you, back away its only a "conspiracy".

[haugenna]

Your comments about wolves habituated to people...
Warning shots...just because an animal doesn't run at the sound of rifle shots means he is habituated to people? Have you ever seen a deer not run at the sound of a gun shot?

In Eatonville at the sportstmans' club we have to chase the deer off the range.  Shooting doesn't bother them.

[jackelope]

Your comments about wolves habituated to people...
Warning shots...just because an animal doesn't run at the sound of rifle shots means he is habituated to people? Have you ever seen a deer not run at the sound of a gun shot?

In Eatonville at the sportstmans' club we have to chase the deer off the range.  Shooting doesn't bother them.

Obviously they're transplants.

There I go with my sarcasm again.

[bearpaw]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

[bearpaw]

Does anyone remember the "Colorado Lynx" fiasco?

[idahohuntr]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

There are not 3 different answers.  USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC.  The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial.  Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from.  If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population.  What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves 

Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources.  Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track.  That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?

This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things.  Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems. 

[mountainman]

Are you a geneticist? Or a toxicologist? Have you seen firsthand the wolves in Twisp? Mazama? Loup Loup? Gold Creek? Pitcher Canyon? Four Corners? Coulter Creek? Eagle Creek? Number 2 canyon? Blewett. Pass? Badger mtn. ? Goose Prairie? Joseph Oregon? I have seen them in most of these areas, or have credible reports from trusted sources.
  You base much of your argument on what the media releases. What are your credentials, I am curious? And should those on Hunt-wa believe you more that first hand, eye witness accounts? You and Jackelope both? I tend to believe reports from those who spend their time in those areas on a day to day basis, rather then what the media spoons out to us...And before you retort with what my credentials are, no, I am not a scientist.. I just spend a lot of my time actually in these areas..

[jackelope]

For the record again.....and again and again.....

I don't contest the idea that the wolves are there.
I do contest the idea that they were dumped there in a truck by WDFW.
I've seen the wolves in the Blues. They've been in my family's pasture. They've chased elk my friend was trying to kill. They've howled all around me in the northeast in the dark.
I don't spend a lot of time in Twisp and I've never claimed to, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I'm still waiting for the evidence that was going to be rammed down my throat 5 years ago.

[idahohuntr]

Are you a geneticist? Or a toxicologist? Have you seen firsthand the wolves in Twisp? Mazama? Loup Loup? Gold Creek? Pitcher Canyon? Four Corners? Coulter Creek? Eagle Creek? Number 2 canyon? Blewett. Pass? Badger mtn. ? Goose Prairie? Joseph Oregon? I have seen them in most of these areas, or have credible reports from trusted sources.
  You base much of your argument on what the media releases. What are your credentials, I am curious? And should those on Hunt-wa believe you more that first hand, eye witness accounts? You and Jackelope both? I tend to believe reports from those who spend their time in those areas on a day to day basis, rather then what the media spoons out to us...And before you retort with what my credentials are, no, I am not a scientist.. I just spend a lot of my time actually in these areas..

No I am not a geneticist or toxicologist.  But the immediate question was about why we were supposedly getting 3 different answers...and I agree with you..."2" of the answers were coming from less reliable media reports, but also folks interpretations were a little off base and there appeared to be some misunderstanding of how and what the results were.

I am all for local knowledge...but in this case seeing wolves does not help answer the genetics issues.  Certainly when it comes to wolf observations/reports I'm sure locals know the most.  WDFW knows that too...its why they strongly encourage reporting sightings and evidence on their website to help focus their trapping efforts. 

Now, when you say I base much of my argument on what the media releases what exactly are you talking about    I absolutely have no faith in journalists to report much credible scientific information...go read the hoof rot thread for a perfect example of that.  I like to hear directly from the scientists and managers themselves...media is out to sell/tell a story...they like to report drama, controversy, outlier events etc. which often distorts reality.  Wolf issues are absolutely a perfect storm for this kind of pseudo-science and its prevalent across the west...I'm not "pro-wolf"...but I am "anti-conspiracy" and "pro-logic" 

[AspenBud]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

Funny you should point this out. This came out the other day I believe...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/27763772

[bearpaw]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

There are not 3 different answers.  USFWS says the wolves handled in 2008 near Twisp have genetic profiles most similar to wolves from S-C BC.  The type of genetic evaluations they use to assign origin are not anything even remotely close to what most people think of DNA testing where you look for a "match"...as in a criminal trial.  Thus, folks with little understanding of genetics are assuming that scientists should be able to unequivocally and with 100% certainty say exactly where a wolf originated from.  If an animal has a genotype similar to other reproductively isolated populations of wolves it is assigned a probability of originating from that population.  What USFWS is saying is that the wolves handled in the Twisp area in 2008 are most similar to gentic profiles of wolves found in S-C BC. The CNW news releases/statements are 2nd hand interpretations of what USFWS did...the 3rd link is obviously CNW trying to trump up genetic differences for ESA listing purposes and actually I don't think they are even discussing the same wolves 

Basically, I'm saying we've got a game of telephone going on here...you have the original USFWS source and then you've got 2 links from perhaps less reliable sources.  Reporters are very prone to pick up a tidbit and run with it if it is the most interesting thing to report so I would not use the methow valley news as a great source for genetic evaluations of wolves...go with USFWS analyses that the wolves in Twisp came from S-C BC and I think you are on the right track.  That would also fit common sense even if we forget about all the genetics info wouldn't you agree?

This highlights a frustration of mine...while I think it is critical for the public to engage in the management of their resources...if folks are not geneticists or toxicologists things can get pretty screwy if they pretend they are and it is very easy to misconstrue or distort things.  Sometimes its done intentionally...other times its done by well meaning folks trying to help...either way it usually does not help address complex resource management problems.

Let me see if I can wade through this ....

So are you saying that two of those reports are false and one report is correct? Or are you saying that none of these reports are correct and they are all guessing? I could go along with the suggestion that CNW is playing politics, but please tell me again who is correct and who is wrong, WDFW or USFWS, or are they both guessing? If they honestly don't have a clue, why would they claim the wolves came from one place or another?

I'm can hardly wait to hear the reply to this! 

[mountainman]

Maybe we can get Jay Carney to explain it better?

[bearpaw]

Where did the Lookout pack come from? 

USFWS with>>>  "southcentral British Columbia"
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

WDFW with>>>the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Conservation Northwest with>>>>>coastal British Columbia
http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

That is really a good question and brings up another more serious question, "Why are there three different answers regarding the DNA results?"

I looked at all three links and each story is claiming a different DNA result than the other. 

Funny you should point this out. This came out the other day I believe...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/27763772

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf

North American gray wolf subspecies

In 1944, American zoologist Edward Goldman recognized as many as 23 subspecies in North America, based on morphology alone.[41] In 1995, mammologist Ronald Nowak disputed these classifications, based on his comparison of numerous wolf skulls from throughout the continent. He concluded that there are only five North American subspecies: C. l. occidentalis, C. l. nubilus, C. l. arctos, C. l. baileyi and C. l. lycaon. Wilson et al. (2000), a genetic study of canids from Algonquin Provincial Park, indicated that C. l. lycaon was a separate species from C. lupus, more closely related to C. rufus.[42]

In a monograph prepared within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), Chambers et al. (2012) reviewed many genetic studies and concluded that the eastern wolf and red wolf are separate species from the gray wolf, having originated in North America 150,000–300,000 years ago from the same line as coyotes. The Chambers review concluded that the subspecific status of C. l. arctos is doubtful, as Arctic wolf populations do not possess unique haplotypes.[8] However, the Chambers review became controversial, forcing the USF&WS to commission a peer review of it, known as NCAES (2014).[43] This peer review concluded unanimously that the Chambers review "is not accepted as consensus scientific opinion or best available science..."

The taxonomy of wolves in the coastal rainforests of British Columbia and southeastern Alaska has also followed a variable path, regarding the putative Vancouver Island wolf (C. l. crassodon) and Alexander Archipelago wolf (C. l. ligoni), respectively. Based on skull morphometrics, C. l. ligoni was recognized by Goldman (1944), Hall (1981) and Pedersen (1982) as a distinct population possibly warranting subspecific classification; however, Nowak (1996) considered it to be an isolated population of C. l. nubilis.[44] From 2005 to 2014 several studies and the NCAES (2014) peer review have found the pacific coastal wolves to have a phenotypically distinct genotype.[45][46][47][48][49]

There was actually 23 sub-species of wolves recognized before wolf introduction in the rocky mountains, but in 1995 they were reclassified, it appears it was convenient to claim that most of the wolf subspecies were all simply gray wolves so they could justify bringing Canadian grays from northern Canada to plant in MT/WY/ID. Then it appears when they wanted to create distinct populations in the southwest and northeast that the taxonomy needed to be reclassified. Now it appears it might be convenient for yet another reclassification of wolves to hopefully keep WA/OR/CA from delisting.

Maybe it's just a coincidence all this happens at just the right time to benefit pro-wolf interests.

[bearpaw]

Maybe we can get Jay Carney to explain it better?

"Were really only stretching the truth a little!"