interesting article on coastal vs inland wolves

[WAcoyotehunter]

http://animals.io9.com/why-is-canadas-wolf-population-splitting-into-two-group-1589448368


Why Is Canada's Wolf Population Splitting Into Two Groups?


Chester Starr of the Heiltsuk First Nation knows that the wolves of British Columbia come in two varieties: timber wolves on the mainland and coastal wolves on the islands. Genetic research has finally confirmed what Starr's tribe has always known.

It was Starr's "traditional ecological knowledge" that initially inspired Polish Academy of Sciences researcher Astrid V. Stronen and University of Calgary scientist Erin Navid to take a closer look at British Columbia's wolves. They wanted to see whether the Heiltsuk Nation's folk knowledge was reflected in the wolves' genes.

The puzzling thing is that wolves are capable of moving over vast geographical distances. They can easily travel more than 70 kilometers per day without even breaking a sweat. They can cross valleys and mountains, and can swim across rivers and even small channels of sea. Yet Stronen, Navid, and colleagues found stark genetic distinctions among wolf groups in an area just 2000 square kilometers.

Why are there such clear genetic groupings among wolf groups who ought to be able to intermix?

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home.



It's an important reminder that nature and nurture, genetics and environment, are more tightly linked than it might seem at first. Chimpanzees and bonobos only diverged some three million years ago (our species last shared an ancestor with them around six million years ago), but today couldn't be more different. As with the wolves of British Columbia, researchers think that the remarkable differences in chimpanzee and bonobo culture originate, at least in part, in their diets. Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation. Even small differences in diet and in foraging and hunting styles can have massive implications for the evolution of a group of animals.

The distinction between coastal and mainland wolves, in some ways, mirrors the distinction between polar and grizzly bears. It is thought that the two bear species diverged because polar bears evolved in regions where they relied on the sea to provide their food, while grizzly bears remained skilled at hunting on dry land. Like polar bears, those wolves who found their way to the islands have simply become skilled at fishing, causing them to remain in marine landscapes. Will the wolves of British Columbia follow in the footsteps of the bears, splitting into two different species? Only time will tell.

It doesn't matter if an animal is physically capable of dispersing over large distances. Instead, what matters is whether they can thrive in environments distinct from the ones in which they learned to survive. Even one neighborhood over, a wolf that was a master fisherman might starve if faced with the task of taking down a massive moose.

Read the whole open-access paper at BMC Ecology.

Photos: Chris Darimont; Guillaume Mazille. Used with permission. Map via Stronen et al.





   111   44_Reply

[AspenBud]

http://animals.io9.com/why-is-canadas-wolf-population-splitting-into-two-group-1589448368


Why Is Canada's Wolf Population Splitting Into Two Groups?


Chester Starr of the Heiltsuk First Nation knows that the wolves of British Columbia come in two varieties: timber wolves on the mainland and coastal wolves on the islands. Genetic research has finally confirmed what Starr's tribe has always known.

It was Starr's "traditional ecological knowledge" that initially inspired Polish Academy of Sciences researcher Astrid V. Stronen and University of Calgary scientist Erin Navid to take a closer look at British Columbia's wolves. They wanted to see whether the Heiltsuk Nation's folk knowledge was reflected in the wolves' genes.

The puzzling thing is that wolves are capable of moving over vast geographical distances. They can easily travel more than 70 kilometers per day without even breaking a sweat. They can cross valleys and mountains, and can swim across rivers and even small channels of sea. Yet Stronen, Navid, and colleagues found stark genetic distinctions among wolf groups in an area just 2000 square kilometers.

Why are there such clear genetic groupings among wolf groups who ought to be able to intermix?

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home.



It's an important reminder that nature and nurture, genetics and environment, are more tightly linked than it might seem at first. Chimpanzees and bonobos only diverged some three million years ago (our species last shared an ancestor with them around six million years ago), but today couldn't be more different. As with the wolves of British Columbia, researchers think that the remarkable differences in chimpanzee and bonobo culture originate, at least in part, in their diets. Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation. Even small differences in diet and in foraging and hunting styles can have massive implications for the evolution of a group of animals.

The distinction between coastal and mainland wolves, in some ways, mirrors the distinction between polar and grizzly bears. It is thought that the two bear species diverged because polar bears evolved in regions where they relied on the sea to provide their food, while grizzly bears remained skilled at hunting on dry land. Like polar bears, those wolves who found their way to the islands have simply become skilled at fishing, causing them to remain in marine landscapes. Will the wolves of British Columbia follow in the footsteps of the bears, splitting into two different species? Only time will tell.

It doesn't matter if an animal is physically capable of dispersing over large distances. Instead, what matters is whether they can thrive in environments distinct from the ones in which they learned to survive. Even one neighborhood over, a wolf that was a master fisherman might starve if faced with the task of taking down a massive moose.

Read the whole open-access paper at BMC Ecology.

Photos: Chris Darimont; Guillaume Mazille. Used with permission. Map via Stronen et al.





   111   44_Reply

If the coastal wolves are the ones I'm thinking of there was a documentary on TV about them back in the late 90's I believe. I want to say they claimed they had shorter coats and tended to eat a lot of salmon when the runs came in. They showed them eating the fish, they generally went for the heads and left the rest and they were trying to find out why that was all they ate. It was crazy, they showed a bunch of headless fish laying around rotting.

Side note, the food thing is popular with wolf people. I believe one of the reasons they used to justify bringing wolves in from Alberta rather than wolves from the lake states was they hunted the game we have around here. Lake states wolves have generally never seen an elk and the bio's involved weren't sure they would know what to do with one. No joke.

[wolfbait]

http://animals.io9.com/why-is-canadas-wolf-population-splitting-into-two-group-1589448368


Why Is Canada's Wolf Population Splitting Into Two Groups?


Chester Starr of the Heiltsuk First Nation knows that the wolves of British Columbia come in two varieties: timber wolves on the mainland and coastal wolves on the islands. Genetic research has finally confirmed what Starr's tribe has always known.

It was Starr's "traditional ecological knowledge" that initially inspired Polish Academy of Sciences researcher Astrid V. Stronen and University of Calgary scientist Erin Navid to take a closer look at British Columbia's wolves. They wanted to see whether the Heiltsuk Nation's folk knowledge was reflected in the wolves' genes.

The puzzling thing is that wolves are capable of moving over vast geographical distances. They can easily travel more than 70 kilometers per day without even breaking a sweat. They can cross valleys and mountains, and can swim across rivers and even small channels of sea. Yet Stronen, Navid, and colleagues found stark genetic distinctions among wolf groups in an area just 2000 square kilometers.

Why are there such clear genetic groupings among wolf groups who ought to be able to intermix?

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home.



It's an important reminder that nature and nurture, genetics and environment, are more tightly linked than it might seem at first. Chimpanzees and bonobos only diverged some three million years ago (our species last shared an ancestor with them around six million years ago), but today couldn't be more different. As with the wolves of British Columbia, researchers think that the remarkable differences in chimpanzee and bonobo culture originate, at least in part, in their diets. Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation. Even small differences in diet and in foraging and hunting styles can have massive implications for the evolution of a group of animals.

The distinction between coastal and mainland wolves, in some ways, mirrors the distinction between polar and grizzly bears. It is thought that the two bear species diverged because polar bears evolved in regions where they relied on the sea to provide their food, while grizzly bears remained skilled at hunting on dry land. Like polar bears, those wolves who found their way to the islands have simply become skilled at fishing, causing them to remain in marine landscapes. Will the wolves of British Columbia follow in the footsteps of the bears, splitting into two different species? Only time will tell.

It doesn't matter if an animal is physically capable of dispersing over large distances. Instead, what matters is whether they can thrive in environments distinct from the ones in which they learned to survive. Even one neighborhood over, a wolf that was a master fisherman might starve if faced with the task of taking down a massive moose.

Read the whole open-access paper at BMC Ecology.

Photos: Chris Darimont; Guillaume Mazille. Used with permission. Map via Stronen et al.





   111   44_Reply

If the coastal wolves are the ones I'm thinking of there was a documentary on TV about them back in the late 90's I believe. I want to say they claimed they had shorter coats and tended to eat a lot of salmon when the runs came in. They showed them eating the fish, they generally went for the heads and left the rest and they were trying to find out why that was all they ate. It was crazy, they showed a bunch of headless fish laying around rotting.

Side note, the food thing is popular with wolf people. I believe one of the reasons they used to justify bringing wolves in from Alberta rather than wolves from the lake states was they hunted the game we have around here. Lake states wolves have generally never seen an elk and the bio's involved weren't sure they would know what to do with one. No joke.

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

In 2009 when WDFW were caught releasing wolves in the Methow Valley, the first thing those wolves did was kill a cow and a calf. That summer folks had more wolf problems then we have ever had. The wolves were seen in the Twisp city limits, killed chickens, followed some lady down the county road, trotted through peoples yards in broad daylight. And still WDFW went with their "the wolves naturally migrated" to the Methow Valeey. By fall the wolves had disappeared.


The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/


 If WDFW and environmentalists say the wolves "Naturally Migrated" over and over again, it still does not make it true.

[AspenBud]

http://animals.io9.com/why-is-canadas-wolf-population-splitting-into-two-group-1589448368


Why Is Canada's Wolf Population Splitting Into Two Groups?


Chester Starr of the Heiltsuk First Nation knows that the wolves of British Columbia come in two varieties: timber wolves on the mainland and coastal wolves on the islands. Genetic research has finally confirmed what Starr's tribe has always known.

It was Starr's "traditional ecological knowledge" that initially inspired Polish Academy of Sciences researcher Astrid V. Stronen and University of Calgary scientist Erin Navid to take a closer look at British Columbia's wolves. They wanted to see whether the Heiltsuk Nation's folk knowledge was reflected in the wolves' genes.

The puzzling thing is that wolves are capable of moving over vast geographical distances. They can easily travel more than 70 kilometers per day without even breaking a sweat. They can cross valleys and mountains, and can swim across rivers and even small channels of sea. Yet Stronen, Navid, and colleagues found stark genetic distinctions among wolf groups in an area just 2000 square kilometers.

Why are there such clear genetic groupings among wolf groups who ought to be able to intermix?

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home.



It's an important reminder that nature and nurture, genetics and environment, are more tightly linked than it might seem at first. Chimpanzees and bonobos only diverged some three million years ago (our species last shared an ancestor with them around six million years ago), but today couldn't be more different. As with the wolves of British Columbia, researchers think that the remarkable differences in chimpanzee and bonobo culture originate, at least in part, in their diets. Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation. Even small differences in diet and in foraging and hunting styles can have massive implications for the evolution of a group of animals.

The distinction between coastal and mainland wolves, in some ways, mirrors the distinction between polar and grizzly bears. It is thought that the two bear species diverged because polar bears evolved in regions where they relied on the sea to provide their food, while grizzly bears remained skilled at hunting on dry land. Like polar bears, those wolves who found their way to the islands have simply become skilled at fishing, causing them to remain in marine landscapes. Will the wolves of British Columbia follow in the footsteps of the bears, splitting into two different species? Only time will tell.

It doesn't matter if an animal is physically capable of dispersing over large distances. Instead, what matters is whether they can thrive in environments distinct from the ones in which they learned to survive. Even one neighborhood over, a wolf that was a master fisherman might starve if faced with the task of taking down a massive moose.

Read the whole open-access paper at BMC Ecology.

Photos: Chris Darimont; Guillaume Mazille. Used with permission. Map via Stronen et al.





   111   44_Reply

If the coastal wolves are the ones I'm thinking of there was a documentary on TV about them back in the late 90's I believe. I want to say they claimed they had shorter coats and tended to eat a lot of salmon when the runs came in. They showed them eating the fish, they generally went for the heads and left the rest and they were trying to find out why that was all they ate. It was crazy, they showed a bunch of headless fish laying around rotting.

Side note, the food thing is popular with wolf people. I believe one of the reasons they used to justify bringing wolves in from Alberta rather than wolves from the lake states was they hunted the game we have around here. Lake states wolves have generally never seen an elk and the bio's involved weren't sure they would know what to do with one. No joke.

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

In 2009 when WDFW were caught releasing wolves in the Methow Valley, the first thing those wolves did was kill a cow and a calf. That summer folks had more wolf problems then we have ever had. The wolves were seen in the Twisp city limits, killed chickens, followed some lady down the county road, trotted through peoples yards in broad daylight. And still WDFW went with their "the wolves naturally migrated" to the Methow Valeey. By fall the wolves had disappeared.


The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/


 If WDFW and environmentalists say the wolves "Naturally Migrated" over and over again, it still does not make it true.

Yeah...

OR-7 – A Lone Wolf's Story
Background

The male wolf known as “OR7” was born in northeastern Oregon in spring 2009. It weighed approximately 90 pounds when collared with a radio transmitter by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in February 2011. It is referred to by biologists as OR7 because it was the seventh wolf radio-collared in Oregon. Its collar transmits location information to satellites daily and is expected to continue to function until at least 2013.

Until recently, OR7 was a member of northeastern Oregon’s Imnaha pack. The Imnaha pack was first documented in 2009 and currently occupies much of the Imnaha River drainage (east of the communities of Enterprise and Joseph) in Wallowa County. The founding members of this pack migrated into Oregon from Idaho.

Although it had as many as 16 wolves in 2010, the Imnaha pack may now have as few as five animals. Several members died in 2011, and four radio-collared wolves (including OR7) have dispersed from the pack since December 2010. Additionally, the locations and fates of five uncollared pack members are currently unknown. According to ODFW, it is likely that some or all of these wolves may have also dispersed from the pack.

The dispersal of younger individuals from a pack is common. Dispersing wolves generally attempt to join other packs, carve out new territories within occupied habitat, or form their own pack in unoccupied habitat. In addition to OR7, known dispersers from the Imnaha pack include OR5, OR9 and OR3: 

    OR5 is a female and entered southeastern Washington in December 2010. Its current whereabouts are unknown.

    OR9 is a male that swam across Brownlee Reservoir and entered Idaho in July 2011 where he was subsequently taken by a hunter in February 2012.
    OR3 is a male that dispersed westward in May 2011. Its collar transmits VHF radio signals only, making the animal more difficult to regularly locate. It was last located on September 30 in the Ochoco Mountains of central Oregon (northeast of Prineville), and its current fate is unknown.

During winter and spring, the Imnaha pack tends to occupy lower-elevation areas consisting of a mix of private and public lands. In summer and fall, the wolves spend most of their time on public lands at higher elevations. The pack has been documented to kill livestock and two of its members were killed by ODFW in May 2011 in an effort to deter further depredation events. In September, ODFW decided to kill two additional wolves from the pack, including the alpha male. However, that action has not yet been implemented due to a court-ordered temporary stay. As an Imnaha pack member, it is likely that at some point OR7 has been involved in livestock depredation in northeastern Oregon. However, since OR7 was collared in February 2011, it has not been documented to have taken part in any depredation events.

Dispersal – Oregon

OR7 dispersed from the Imnaha pack in September 2011. Between September and early November it followed an approximately southwesterly course that took it across parts of Baker, Grant, Harney, Deschutes, Lake, Klamath and Douglas counties. During that journey it crossed Interstate 84 and U.S. Routes 26, 395, 20 and 97.

Between November 8 and December 23, OR7’s movements slowed and it occupied a broad area near the crest of the southern Cascades. This area included portions of Jackson and Klamath counties and included much of the Sky Lakes Wilderness. Field work conducted by ODFW determined that OR7 visited an elk carcass and livestock carcasses (bone pile) in this area. On November 14, an animal thought likely to be OR7 was photographed by a hunter’s trail camera on public land east of Butte Falls.

In late December, OR7 left the Sky Lakes area and headed south-southwest to near Howard Prairie Lake and Oregon Route 66. It then turned eastward, ultimately crossing the Klamath River and Highway 97. On December 28, OR7 crossed into California northeast of Dorris, a small town in Siskiyou County.

Dispersal – California

Since arriving in California, OR7 has traveled in the southern Cascades and across portions of the Modoc Plateau. Its average daily movement has been approximately 15 air miles. Since animals do not typically walk in straight lines, the actual distance it travels is likely much larger.

Dispersing wolves can readily traverse most habitat types and OR7 has passed through ponderosa pine forests, mixed conifer forests, lava flows, sagebrush shrublands, juniper woodlands and agricultural lands. Although OR7 has used private lands (timberlands in particular), most of its route has traversed public lands.

No public safety incidents events or agricultural losses stemming from wolf damage have been reported in California. There have been no confirmed sightings of OR7 in California.

Dec 28 – 31. After entering California, OR7 passed through Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and then continued south-southeasterly across private and public lands (BLM and USFS) near Mt. Dome. On December 31 it was on the Modoc National Forest between Lava Beds National Monument and Medicine Lake.

Week of January 1-7. OR7 remained in roughly the same area between Medicine Lake and Lava Beds NM until January 3. On January 3 and 4, OR7 crossed the Medicine Lake Highlands and moved approximately 30 air miles to the southeastern corner of Siskiyou County. It entered eastern Shasta County’s Fall River watershed on January 5. It soon turned westward and crossed the Pit River and Highway 89. On January 6 and 7, it was in the Cascade Mountains west of Burney. It spent much of its time in an area of regenerating forest that had burned in the 1992 Fountain Fire.

Week of January 8-15. OR7 remained in the Cascades west of Burney until January 9. It then traveled south along the Cascade crest to LaTour State Forest before turning  eastward. By the end of January 10, it had crossed Highways 89 and 44 and was in Lassen County near Bogard Buttes (over 49 air miles from its transmitted location point on January 9). OR7 continued its rapid travel on January 11, traveling approximately 30 air miles to near Grasshopper Valley in northern Lassen County.

https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/wolf/OR7story.html

[AspenBud]

http://animals.io9.com/why-is-canadas-wolf-population-splitting-into-two-group-1589448368


Why Is Canada's Wolf Population Splitting Into Two Groups?


Chester Starr of the Heiltsuk First Nation knows that the wolves of British Columbia come in two varieties: timber wolves on the mainland and coastal wolves on the islands. Genetic research has finally confirmed what Starr's tribe has always known.

It was Starr's "traditional ecological knowledge" that initially inspired Polish Academy of Sciences researcher Astrid V. Stronen and University of Calgary scientist Erin Navid to take a closer look at British Columbia's wolves. They wanted to see whether the Heiltsuk Nation's folk knowledge was reflected in the wolves' genes.

The puzzling thing is that wolves are capable of moving over vast geographical distances. They can easily travel more than 70 kilometers per day without even breaking a sweat. They can cross valleys and mountains, and can swim across rivers and even small channels of sea. Yet Stronen, Navid, and colleagues found stark genetic distinctions among wolf groups in an area just 2000 square kilometers.

Why are there such clear genetic groupings among wolf groups who ought to be able to intermix?

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home.



It's an important reminder that nature and nurture, genetics and environment, are more tightly linked than it might seem at first. Chimpanzees and bonobos only diverged some three million years ago (our species last shared an ancestor with them around six million years ago), but today couldn't be more different. As with the wolves of British Columbia, researchers think that the remarkable differences in chimpanzee and bonobo culture originate, at least in part, in their diets. Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation. Even small differences in diet and in foraging and hunting styles can have massive implications for the evolution of a group of animals.

The distinction between coastal and mainland wolves, in some ways, mirrors the distinction between polar and grizzly bears. It is thought that the two bear species diverged because polar bears evolved in regions where they relied on the sea to provide their food, while grizzly bears remained skilled at hunting on dry land. Like polar bears, those wolves who found their way to the islands have simply become skilled at fishing, causing them to remain in marine landscapes. Will the wolves of British Columbia follow in the footsteps of the bears, splitting into two different species? Only time will tell.

It doesn't matter if an animal is physically capable of dispersing over large distances. Instead, what matters is whether they can thrive in environments distinct from the ones in which they learned to survive. Even one neighborhood over, a wolf that was a master fisherman might starve if faced with the task of taking down a massive moose.

Read the whole open-access paper at BMC Ecology.

Photos: Chris Darimont; Guillaume Mazille. Used with permission. Map via Stronen et al.





   111   44_Reply

If the coastal wolves are the ones I'm thinking of there was a documentary on TV about them back in the late 90's I believe. I want to say they claimed they had shorter coats and tended to eat a lot of salmon when the runs came in. They showed them eating the fish, they generally went for the heads and left the rest and they were trying to find out why that was all they ate. It was crazy, they showed a bunch of headless fish laying around rotting.

Side note, the food thing is popular with wolf people. I believe one of the reasons they used to justify bringing wolves in from Alberta rather than wolves from the lake states was they hunted the game we have around here. Lake states wolves have generally never seen an elk and the bio's involved weren't sure they would know what to do with one. No joke.

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

In 2009 when WDFW were caught releasing wolves in the Methow Valley, the first thing those wolves did was kill a cow and a calf. That summer folks had more wolf problems then we have ever had. The wolves were seen in the Twisp city limits, killed chickens, followed some lady down the county road, trotted through peoples yards in broad daylight. And still WDFW went with their "the wolves naturally migrated" to the Methow Valeey. By fall the wolves had disappeared.


The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/


If WDFW and environmentalists say the wolves "Naturally Migrated" over and over again, it still does not make it true.

Yeah...

Second Oregon wolf killed by hunter in Idaho

 GRANTS PASS -- A second GPS-collared wolf from Oregon has been killed by a hunter in Idaho.

Idaho Fish and Game spokesman Mike Demick confirmed Thursday that the 2-year-old female known as OR-17 was shot March 2, about a week after leaving Oregon.

He says the wolf was shot legally by a hunter in Lawyers Canyon about 70 miles south of Lewiston. It crossed into Idaho by swimming the Snake River on Feb. 24.

"He was out coyote hunting," said Demick. "It kind of surprised him. He said, 'Well ... wolf season is open, I've got a wolf tag, and here's a wolf.'"

The area is prime wolf habitat, but it is not currently occupied by a pack, though there are some in the area, he added.

The wolf was a member of the Imnaha pack, the first to breed in Oregon from wolves that migrated from Idaho after their reintroduction in the 1990s. It was fitted with a GPS tracking collar by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and turned loose in February 2012, after getting inadvertently caught in a coyote trap. A young male wolf from the pack, OR-9, was shot in Idaho in February 2012. Young wolves regularly leave their packs in search of a mate and a new territory. At last count, Oregon had 64 wolves, up from 48 in 2012. Four of the eight packs, all located in northeastern Oregon, successfully produced pups.

Rob Klavins of Oregon Wild says the killing underscores how states differ in their approach to wolves. Another migrating wolf from the Imnaha pack, OR-7, has become an international celebrity after trekking more than 1,000 miles across Oregon and Northern California in search of a mate since 2011.

"When gray whales were taken off the endangered species list, they didn't reopen whaling centers on the coast," he said. "We didn't have hunts for bald eagles to reduce them to minimum populations. When it comes to wolves, we treat them differently. That's what we are seeing in Idaho."

More than 900 wolves have been killed in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes since Endangered Species Act protections were lifted in 2011. In Idaho, more than 260 wolves have been killed by hunters and trappers since the start of wolf season last Aug. 30.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/03/second_oregon_wolf_killed_by_h.html

[AspenBud]

http://animals.io9.com/why-is-canadas-wolf-population-splitting-into-two-group-1589448368


Why Is Canada's Wolf Population Splitting Into Two Groups?


Chester Starr of the Heiltsuk First Nation knows that the wolves of British Columbia come in two varieties: timber wolves on the mainland and coastal wolves on the islands. Genetic research has finally confirmed what Starr's tribe has always known.

It was Starr's "traditional ecological knowledge" that initially inspired Polish Academy of Sciences researcher Astrid V. Stronen and University of Calgary scientist Erin Navid to take a closer look at British Columbia's wolves. They wanted to see whether the Heiltsuk Nation's folk knowledge was reflected in the wolves' genes.

The puzzling thing is that wolves are capable of moving over vast geographical distances. They can easily travel more than 70 kilometers per day without even breaking a sweat. They can cross valleys and mountains, and can swim across rivers and even small channels of sea. Yet Stronen, Navid, and colleagues found stark genetic distinctions among wolf groups in an area just 2000 square kilometers.

Why are there such clear genetic groupings among wolf groups who ought to be able to intermix?

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home.



It's an important reminder that nature and nurture, genetics and environment, are more tightly linked than it might seem at first. Chimpanzees and bonobos only diverged some three million years ago (our species last shared an ancestor with them around six million years ago), but today couldn't be more different. As with the wolves of British Columbia, researchers think that the remarkable differences in chimpanzee and bonobo culture originate, at least in part, in their diets. Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation. Even small differences in diet and in foraging and hunting styles can have massive implications for the evolution of a group of animals.

The distinction between coastal and mainland wolves, in some ways, mirrors the distinction between polar and grizzly bears. It is thought that the two bear species diverged because polar bears evolved in regions where they relied on the sea to provide their food, while grizzly bears remained skilled at hunting on dry land. Like polar bears, those wolves who found their way to the islands have simply become skilled at fishing, causing them to remain in marine landscapes. Will the wolves of British Columbia follow in the footsteps of the bears, splitting into two different species? Only time will tell.

It doesn't matter if an animal is physically capable of dispersing over large distances. Instead, what matters is whether they can thrive in environments distinct from the ones in which they learned to survive. Even one neighborhood over, a wolf that was a master fisherman might starve if faced with the task of taking down a massive moose.

Read the whole open-access paper at BMC Ecology.

Photos: Chris Darimont; Guillaume Mazille. Used with permission. Map via Stronen et al.





   111   44_Reply

If the coastal wolves are the ones I'm thinking of there was a documentary on TV about them back in the late 90's I believe. I want to say they claimed they had shorter coats and tended to eat a lot of salmon when the runs came in. They showed them eating the fish, they generally went for the heads and left the rest and they were trying to find out why that was all they ate. It was crazy, they showed a bunch of headless fish laying around rotting.

Side note, the food thing is popular with wolf people. I believe one of the reasons they used to justify bringing wolves in from Alberta rather than wolves from the lake states was they hunted the game we have around here. Lake states wolves have generally never seen an elk and the bio's involved weren't sure they would know what to do with one. No joke.

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

In 2009 when WDFW were caught releasing wolves in the Methow Valley, the first thing those wolves did was kill a cow and a calf. That summer folks had more wolf problems then we have ever had. The wolves were seen in the Twisp city limits, killed chickens, followed some lady down the county road, trotted through peoples yards in broad daylight. And still WDFW went with their "the wolves naturally migrated" to the Methow Valeey. By fall the wolves had disappeared.


The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/


If WDFW and environmentalists say the wolves "Naturally Migrated" over and over again, it still does not make it true.

Yeah...

"Wolves first showed up on Isle Royale in the 1940s, when a handful crossed the ice bridge from Ontario just a few decades after moose had made the same trek. The research study examining the relationship between predator and prey began in 1959. "

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140427-wolves-isle-royale-animals-science-nation/

[AspenBud]

http://animals.io9.com/why-is-canadas-wolf-population-splitting-into-two-group-1589448368


Why Is Canada's Wolf Population Splitting Into Two Groups?


Chester Starr of the Heiltsuk First Nation knows that the wolves of British Columbia come in two varieties: timber wolves on the mainland and coastal wolves on the islands. Genetic research has finally confirmed what Starr's tribe has always known.

It was Starr's "traditional ecological knowledge" that initially inspired Polish Academy of Sciences researcher Astrid V. Stronen and University of Calgary scientist Erin Navid to take a closer look at British Columbia's wolves. They wanted to see whether the Heiltsuk Nation's folk knowledge was reflected in the wolves' genes.

The puzzling thing is that wolves are capable of moving over vast geographical distances. They can easily travel more than 70 kilometers per day without even breaking a sweat. They can cross valleys and mountains, and can swim across rivers and even small channels of sea. Yet Stronen, Navid, and colleagues found stark genetic distinctions among wolf groups in an area just 2000 square kilometers.

Why are there such clear genetic groupings among wolf groups who ought to be able to intermix?

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home.



It's an important reminder that nature and nurture, genetics and environment, are more tightly linked than it might seem at first. Chimpanzees and bonobos only diverged some three million years ago (our species last shared an ancestor with them around six million years ago), but today couldn't be more different. As with the wolves of British Columbia, researchers think that the remarkable differences in chimpanzee and bonobo culture originate, at least in part, in their diets. Chimpanzees evolved in forests with fewer dietary resources than bonobos did. Fruits are a bit harder to come by for chimps, which may explain why they evolved to be more competitive. Bonobos, on the other hand, evolved in a land of plenty. The reduced competition over food may have led the so-called "hippie ape" towards greater tolerance and cooperation. Even small differences in diet and in foraging and hunting styles can have massive implications for the evolution of a group of animals.

The distinction between coastal and mainland wolves, in some ways, mirrors the distinction between polar and grizzly bears. It is thought that the two bear species diverged because polar bears evolved in regions where they relied on the sea to provide their food, while grizzly bears remained skilled at hunting on dry land. Like polar bears, those wolves who found their way to the islands have simply become skilled at fishing, causing them to remain in marine landscapes. Will the wolves of British Columbia follow in the footsteps of the bears, splitting into two different species? Only time will tell.

It doesn't matter if an animal is physically capable of dispersing over large distances. Instead, what matters is whether they can thrive in environments distinct from the ones in which they learned to survive. Even one neighborhood over, a wolf that was a master fisherman might starve if faced with the task of taking down a massive moose.

Read the whole open-access paper at BMC Ecology.

Photos: Chris Darimont; Guillaume Mazille. Used with permission. Map via Stronen et al.





   111   44_Reply

If the coastal wolves are the ones I'm thinking of there was a documentary on TV about them back in the late 90's I believe. I want to say they claimed they had shorter coats and tended to eat a lot of salmon when the runs came in. They showed them eating the fish, they generally went for the heads and left the rest and they were trying to find out why that was all they ate. It was crazy, they showed a bunch of headless fish laying around rotting.

Side note, the food thing is popular with wolf people. I believe one of the reasons they used to justify bringing wolves in from Alberta rather than wolves from the lake states was they hunted the game we have around here. Lake states wolves have generally never seen an elk and the bio's involved weren't sure they would know what to do with one. No joke.

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

In 2009 when WDFW were caught releasing wolves in the Methow Valley, the first thing those wolves did was kill a cow and a calf. That summer folks had more wolf problems then we have ever had. The wolves were seen in the Twisp city limits, killed chickens, followed some lady down the county road, trotted through peoples yards in broad daylight. And still WDFW went with their "the wolves naturally migrated" to the Methow Valeey. By fall the wolves had disappeared.


The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves
http://tomremington.com/2014/06/09/the-naturally-migrating-gi-wolves/


If WDFW and environmentalists say the wolves "Naturally Migrated" over and over again, it still does not make it true.

Yeah...

Top Predators Descend: Lower Michigan Wolves Sighted; DNR Seeks Help in Survey

KALKASKA – Northern Lower Michigan residents reported gray wolf sightings across much of the region in recent years and now state wildlife officials want to hone in on the top predators’ range and population.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources will conduct a wolf population survey in the Lower Peninsula through March 14, the species’ prime breeding season. Authorities first documented the return of wolves to Lower Michigan in Presque Isle County in 2004 and last year verified a breeding pack in Cheboygan County.

“We know of one area where they are and are staying and we’re looking for other areas where they may be,” said Jennifer Kleitch, DNR wildlife biologist.

A pack of five or six animals made the northern portions of Cheboygan County their home range. The pack includes two or three pups, though authorities confirmed at least one pup was killed and they seek tips leading to the arrest and conviction of the poacher.

Public reports of wolves stretch outside that densely wooded tip-of-the-mitt area. The DNR even received a few unsubstantiated reports of wolf sightings in Kalkaska County, Kleitch said.

“It seems that there may be a very small number that roam around. It’s possible there are others,” she said. “We don’t know how many and that’s what we’re trying to find out with the survey.”

Gary Gile, manager at Jack’s Sport Shop in Kalkaska, said not many locals mention spotting wolves in the area.

“I have heard about them in Cheboygan County and up to Mackinaw City,” Gile said.

Wolves are a federally protected species that once inhabited all regions of Michigan, but predator control programs in the 20th century virtually eliminated the wild canine from the state. But wolves began to return to the Upper Peninsula through Canada and Wisconsin in the 1990s.

Now the Upper Peninsula has a well-established wolf population last estimated at more than 500 animals. It’s believed some expanded their territory by crossing the wintertime ice bridge at the Straits of Mackinac and since took up residency in the northern Lower Peninsula. Continued...

http://www.morningstarpublishing.com/articles/2011/02/23/leader_and_kalkaskian/news/doc4d652a1244e0c779390693.txt

[wolfbait]

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

[AspenBud]

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

Migration

This species is not migratory but may move seasonally following migrating ungulates within its territory. Gray Wolves also disperse widely. Males in northwestern Montana can move an average of 113 km (70 miles) from their natal territory, and females 77 km (48 miles), before establishing a new territory or joining an existing pack (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Dispersal peaks twice per year; first in January/February and second, in May/June (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Some Gray Wolves are known to have dispersed up to 805 km (500 miles). Dispersal has been documented from Canada, Idaho and Wyoming to Montana. Montana Gray Wolves are also known to have dispersed to Canada, Idaho, and Wyoming.

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJA01030.aspx

From Merriam Webster...

mi·gra·to·ry
adjective \ˈmī-grə-ˌtȯr-ē\

: moving from one place to another at different times of the year : migrating regularly

Also from Merriam Webster...

dis·perse
verb \di-ˈspərs\

: to go or move in different directions : to spread apart

So yes, in essence Mr. Remington, the fine gentleman who has spent his entire life in Maine and Florida but somehow becomes an expert on Washington wolves, is right. They don't migrate.

But they do disperse.

[mountainman]

Aaron, in your quotes about, they refer several times as migrating..if you are going to debate, bring evidential quotes that support your assumptions sir

[idahohuntr]

All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

You really think there is a shred of truth to that statement?  So we've got 2 overarching hypotheses here from what I can tell regarding the dispersal and occurrence of new wolf packs in the west:

1. Wolves were reintroduced to ID and WY, as their populations expanded those wolves migrated (naturally  ) and we regularly see wolves in other western states where they have now established.  These wolves cross state and international borders routinely and we often see wolves moving large distances (e.g., OR7) which is natural for this large predator.

2. In one of the most elaborate and expensive conspiracies in the world, we have the federal government, 5 states, and a foreign country working in concert to breed, rear, and release wolves at various times and places and fabricate data documenting their dispersal to keep the public in the dark.  These wolves are well trained to stay in small ranges and not disperse without consent from a government agency.  In 20 years of pulling off this elaborate scheme involving thousands of people the only real evidence we have is wolfbait talked to a ups driver who swears he saw something.

I'm going to stick with choice number 1 

[mountainman]

Always amusing, as always Idaho!

[mountainman]

Your defence gets more elaborate then the so called conspierencies  ever have! Don't worry, sure everyone believes you!

[wolfbait]

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

Migration

This species is not migratory but may move seasonally following migrating ungulates within its territory. Gray Wolves also disperse widely. Males in northwestern Montana can move an average of 113 km (70 miles) from their natal territory, and females 77 km (48 miles), before establishing a new territory or joining an existing pack (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Dispersal peaks twice per year; first in January/February and second, in May/June (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Some Gray Wolves are known to have dispersed up to 805 km (500 miles). Dispersal has been documented from Canada, Idaho and Wyoming to Montana. Montana Gray Wolves are also known to have dispersed to Canada, Idaho, and Wyoming.

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJA01030.aspx

From Merriam Webster...

mi·gra·to·ry
adjective \ˈmī-grə-ˌtȯr-ē\

: moving from one place to another at different times of the year : migrating regularly

Also from Merriam Webster...

dis·perse
verb \di-ˈspərs\

: to go or move in different directions : to spread apart

So yes, in essence Mr. Remington, the fine gentleman who has spent his entire life in Maine and Florida but somehow becomes an expert on Washington wolves, is right. They don't migrate.

But they do disperse.

 Wolves eat their way outward, in other wards as wolves disperse they leave a trail of destruction in wildlife and livestock. Folks saw this in Idaho after the USFWS dumped wolves in different areas, Ed Bang's said the reason behind the releases was because wolves were not dispersing as rapidly as they had hoped. Talking to those in ID, MT and Wyoming they will tell you that the USFWS did the same thing that WDFW has done and is still doing throughout WA.

For WDFW to claim that the wolves picked up after 70-80 years and dispersed or migrated to WA was very foolish on their part. If both agencies would have said the wolves were dispersing from Idaho it would have made more sense. But I guess that doesn't matter as long as those who don't have to put up with the wolves, are fooled. (“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” )

Knowing what we know today, I'm sure it won't be too long before WA is full of wolves.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008
Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.
  http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008

DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating."
 http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley


*Update* – June 13, 2014:
“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

[AspenBud]

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

Migration

This species is not migratory but may move seasonally following migrating ungulates within its territory. Gray Wolves also disperse widely. Males in northwestern Montana can move an average of 113 km (70 miles) from their natal territory, and females 77 km (48 miles), before establishing a new territory or joining an existing pack (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Dispersal peaks twice per year; first in January/February and second, in May/June (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Some Gray Wolves are known to have dispersed up to 805 km (500 miles). Dispersal has been documented from Canada, Idaho and Wyoming to Montana. Montana Gray Wolves are also known to have dispersed to Canada, Idaho, and Wyoming.

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJA01030.aspx

From Merriam Webster...

mi·gra·to·ry
adjective \ˈmī-grə-ˌtȯr-ē\

: moving from one place to another at different times of the year : migrating regularly

Also from Merriam Webster...

dis·perse
verb \di-ˈspərs\

: to go or move in different directions : to spread apart

So yes, in essence Mr. Remington, the fine gentleman who has spent his entire life in Maine and Florida but somehow becomes an expert on Washington wolves, is right. They don't migrate.

But they do disperse.

 Wolves eat their way outward, in other wards as wolves disperse they leave a trail of destruction in wildlife and livestock. Folks saw this in Idaho after the USFWS dumped wolves in different areas, Ed Bang's said the reason behind the releases was because wolves were not dispersing as rapidly as they had hoped. Talking to those in ID, MT and Wyoming they will tell you that the USFWS did the same thing that WDFW has done and is still doing throughout WA.

For WDFW to claim that the wolves picked up after 70-80 years and dispersed or migrated to WA was very foolish on their part. If both agencies would have said the wolves were dispersing from Idaho it would have made more sense. But I guess that doesn't matter as long as those who don't have to put up with the wolves, are fooled. (“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” )

Knowing what we know today, I'm sure it won't be too long before WA is full of wolves.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008
Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.
  http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008

DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating."
 http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley


*Update* – June 13, 2014:
“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

You're making contradicting points. I agree they can eat their way out of house and home. But if wolves "are filling Washington up" that means their population is growing and they are dispersing. If they can disperse within Washington they can disperse out of Idaho and BC and establish new populations here.

Wolf reintroduction in states outside of Washington has been wildly successful from the perspective of their growing numbers, you, me, and everyone else here agrees on that. Even the people who wanted them here are surprised at how fast they bred and how many pups survived. The folks in British Columbia also have a wolf population that is currently at historic highs. Those excess wolves aren't going to sit in one location, they are going to disperse as will their offspring and they will establish in new areas and they have.

To say they needed to be released in Washington or that they couldn't have arrived here and proliferated quickly without releases is a complete denial of what has happened in the states surrounding Washington and in British Columbia.

Why are you worried about wolf management if releases are necessary for them to grow in population? Your assertion would seem to indicate that wolves are not as prolific as you claim.

[AspenBud]

Here's my question wolfbait.

Do you deny that wolves increased in population and spread out of Yellowstone? Do you deny that they increased in population and spread throughout much of Idaho? Governor Otter sure seems to think they did.

If not, how can you deny that they could disperse out of Idaho and even BC and breed like rabbits and start filling up Washington?

Virtually everyone here, including you, agrees that wolves left unchecked are a cancer on the landscape because they breed and breed and breed and breed and breed and expand their range, eating as they go. Yet you also want to argue that somehow, Washington is different, that they couldn't possibly have come in from out of state and bred nearly as prolifically as they did in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or BC. That only releases could have caused this. You do see the problem with your assertion there right? You're essentially saying Washington is harder for wolves to be successful in and I know you don't believe that for a second.

[wolfbait]

"Despite their ability to travel great distances, some animals' behavior becomes so specialized, thanks to the environment into which they were born, that they wind up sticking close to home."

Mech said that translocated wolves normally either return to the same area or commit similar depredations in their new location--All evidence points to the fact that wolves Do Not Migrate, but instead stay in the areas in which they were born.

Remember the large fenced areas that the USFWS built to keep wolves in when they brought the wolves from Alberta? The USFWS knew from past experiences of releasing wolves, that the wolves would just return to their home land if they weren't fed and held where they were released for several months. They called this soft wolf releases.

A Canadian wildlife agent said we would be surprised at how many collared wolves came back to Alberta, he said we would also be shocked at how many more wolves the USFWS bought.

Migration

This species is not migratory but may move seasonally following migrating ungulates within its territory. Gray Wolves also disperse widely. Males in northwestern Montana can move an average of 113 km (70 miles) from their natal territory, and females 77 km (48 miles), before establishing a new territory or joining an existing pack (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Dispersal peaks twice per year; first in January/February and second, in May/June (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Some Gray Wolves are known to have dispersed up to 805 km (500 miles). Dispersal has been documented from Canada, Idaho and Wyoming to Montana. Montana Gray Wolves are also known to have dispersed to Canada, Idaho, and Wyoming.

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJA01030.aspx

From Merriam Webster...

mi·gra·to·ry
adjective \ˈmī-grə-ˌtȯr-ē\

: moving from one place to another at different times of the year : migrating regularly

Also from Merriam Webster...

dis·perse
verb \di-ˈspərs\

: to go or move in different directions : to spread apart

So yes, in essence Mr. Remington, the fine gentleman who has spent his entire life in Maine and Florida but somehow becomes an expert on Washington wolves, is right. They don't migrate.

But they do disperse.

 Wolves eat their way outward, in other wards as wolves disperse they leave a trail of destruction in wildlife and livestock. Folks saw this in Idaho after the USFWS dumped wolves in different areas, Ed Bang's said the reason behind the releases was because wolves were not dispersing as rapidly as they had hoped. Talking to those in ID, MT and Wyoming they will tell you that the USFWS did the same thing that WDFW has done and is still doing throughout WA.

For WDFW to claim that the wolves picked up after 70-80 years and dispersed or migrated to WA was very foolish on their part. If both agencies would have said the wolves were dispersing from Idaho it would have made more sense. But I guess that doesn't matter as long as those who don't have to put up with the wolves, are fooled. (“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” )

Knowing what we know today, I'm sure it won't be too long before WA is full of wolves.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update
2008
Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.
  http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008

DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating."
 http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley


*Update* – June 13, 2014:
“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

You're making contradicting points. I agree they can eat their way out of house and home. But if wolves "are filling Washington up" that means their population is growing and they are dispersing. If they can disperse within Washington they can disperse out of Idaho and BC and establish new populations here.

Wolf reintroduction in states outside of Washington has been wildly successful from the perspective of their growing numbers, you, me, and everyone else here agrees on that. Even the people who wanted them here are surprised at how fast they bred and how many pups survived. The folks in British Columbia also have a wolf population that is currently at historic highs. Those excess wolves aren't going to sit in one location, they are going to disperse as will their offspring and they will establish in new areas and they have.

To say they needed to be released in Washington or that they couldn't have arrived here and proliferated quickly without releases is a complete denial of what has happened in the states surrounding Washington and in British Columbia.

Why are you worried about wolf management if releases are necessary for them to grow in population? Your assertion would seem to indicate that wolves are not as prolific as you claim.

What you fail to see or maybe never realized is, do to the USFWS's and state game agencies dishonesty of releasing and relocating wolves throughout the states to speed up wolf recovery, we never had a chance to see how long it took for wolves to disperse on their own and populate a state. This has and will be a problem for every state that the USFWS and their state game adopt wolf recovery in. This is the reason WA had wolves pop up in so many different areas so fast. I highly doubt there are too many people that believe the wolves dispersed from Alberta or Idaho through prime elk country to settle a few miles outside of Twisp WA. If the wolves would have been dispersing on their own, their would have been the usual carnage wolves leave behind as they ate their way to the Methow Valley, it takes a little while for wolves to decimate a herd, it does't happen over night. Look at the Methow Valley as an example, we have watched the wolves kill livestock, dogs, deer, and stalk people, and we have seen the major decline in the deer herds and their behavior, all the while WDFW are still claiming there is only one wolf pack in the Methow Valley or Okanogan County and the deer are doing just fine. Even if WDFW hadn't been caught releasing wolves throughout the state, the actions by the USFWS in ID, MT, and Wyoming would dictate the same outcome in WA etc.

 What has/is happening in the lower 48 is the USFWS and state game agencies fast tracking wolf recovery by releasing/relocating wolves in certain areas all over a state, and then refusing to confirm the wolves until they are forced to do so. If they were forced to confirm the wolves/wolf packs reported to them, it would show far too many wolves in many areas to have occurred through natural expansion and dispersing.

 Using the Okanogan country as an example where wolves/wolf packs and predation on livestock/pets has been reported to WDFW from all over the county, and yet WDFW refuse to confirm or acknowledge this is happening.

There are others who can explain this better than I probably did, and in the future everyone will know how the states were infested with wolves so quickly, and why it was so important for the USFWS and state game agencies refusal to confirm wolf packs and the decimation of ungulates. Remember the Lolo elk herd!

[WAcoyotehunter]

Your defence gets more elaborate then the so called conspierencies  ever have! Don't worry, sure everyone believes you!

By everyone's admission- wolves were in the North Cascades for a LONG time before they were "discovered".  A howling survey in the 1990's documented wolves, but not reproduction.  It's a published paper, not a secret.  So, is it really that hard to believe that those wolves are the ones that were "discovered" (documented) in 2008?

[bearpaw]

If everyone will fast forward to today and what the wolf groups are trying to do now to prevent wolf management by trying to say that "coastal wolves should be classified separately from inland wolves" there is an important bit of info in the original post:

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

The wolf groups are trying to say coastal wolves on the mainland should be classified as a distinct species. The researchers are saying wolves on the islands have evolved differently than the wolves on the mainland. This arguably indicates the coastal wolves on the mainland are not a distinct specie. This is an important distinction, because if the wolf groups get their way, you will see Washington trying to recover two species of wolves which will further delay management.

[wolfbait]

If everyone will fast forward to today and what the wolf groups are trying to do now to prevent wolf management by trying to say that "coastal wolves should be classified separately from inland wolves" there is an important bit of info in the original post:

According to the researchers, it's all about what they eat. Despite the tiny distances between the mainland and the islands – sometimes less than 1500 meters of water – there are tremendous ecological distinctions. The mainland is rugged and is home to tons of wildlife, while the islands are less mountainous and host fewer species. On the mainland, grizzly bears compete with wolves, but on islands, wolves are the top dogs. On the mainland, wolves can feast on moose and mountain goats. On the islands, wolves rely on marine resources, like fish, for 85% of their diets.

The wolf groups are trying to say coastal wolves on the mainland should be classified as a distinct species. The researchers are saying wolves on the islands have evolved differently than the wolves on the mainland. This arguably indicates the coastal wolves on the mainland are not a distinct specie. This is an important distinction, because if the wolf groups get their way, you will see Washington trying to recover two species of wolves which will further delay management.

The USFWS dumped Alberta wolves on top of smaller native Wolves in ID etc., can they have it both ways? 

[Special T]

Funny how sub species WER NOT important when they broght the wolves from canada to ID & YNP. They WERE NOT important  despite the fact that the wolves documented in N cascades were aleady here and different from those coming in from ID. The Sub Speces ARE important to protect Mexican Red Wolves in the SW. NOW they are setting the staget to protect "coastal" wolves... Funny if they wanted native wolves they should have protected the ones already documented in the state and not let other wolves overrun the habitat.

There is NO trust becaue the WDFW & USFS cannot have it both ways. EITHER sub species WERE important from the start, OR they NEVER were. The real sad part of this whole ordeal is that wolves are just a tool for controll and a way for the DoW and their Ilk to make money thought sueing states and the feds. 

[idahohuntr]

I believe the article is saying that while there may be close geographic distances between wovles, those coastal wolves on marine islands are genetically distinct from inland wolves because diet, habitat etc. are markedly different.  Makes some sense.  However, I don't think there has been any credible evidence to suggest that wolves from central bc or alberta are any different than wolves in Id, Mt, Wy, or Wa.  Folks who suggest such are arguing on behalf of the environmental groups who want to maintain protection of wolves forever.

I'm going to agree with USFWS/WDFW etc. on this one...a gray wolf in the NRM states is a gray wolf. 

[AspenBud]

You guys are right about one thing, whether they are different sub species or not, it all depends on the agenda.

[Special T]

Its a similar play book that has been used is the ESA issue regaurding Salmon. They have tryed and in some cases succeded in pushing sub species even tho there were NO DNA differences.

If you want to say they are all the same then they are end of story and we will work under those set of rules, HOWEVER if they are just going to move back and forth to fit thier adjenda then its NOT about the animals its about the Power and $.

[AspenBud]

Its a similar play book that has been used is the ESA issue regaurding Salmon. They have tryed and in some cases succeded in pushing sub species even tho there were NO DNA differences.

If you want to say they are all the same then they are end of story and we will work under those set of rules, HOWEVER if they are just going to move back and forth to fit thier adjenda then its NOT about the animals its about the Power and $.

The problem is the hole got dug a long time ago. How many times have people claimed there was still a native wolf in Idaho or WA and that the Alberta imports were never necessary? How many times are wolves in Russia referred to when speaking about the Alberta imports' behavior? I've pointed out the differences and yet people still try to argue they are the same?

Both sides are quite guilty of jumping the line.

One used the "they are all the same" line to justify bringing them in and now the other side wants to say they are "all the same" to keep from having any more protections. One now wants to use the multi specie argument to extend protections, the other wanted to say they were different to keep wolves out or justify some mythical government conspiracy.

Focus on what's important, management. Not motivations or who is right about how many species are or are not out there.

[Special T]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

[AspenBud]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

[idahohuntr]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Yes, the extremists on both sides will advocate all kinds of wild positions.  USFWS, IDFG, WDFW, MTFWP etc. have all said the same thing for a long time...gray wolves introduced from central bc are the same gray wolves historically found in the NRM.  I believe that to be a logical conclusion and suggest we stick with it unless it is proven otherwise. 

[wolfbait]

USFWS's Wolves

[wolfbait]

Page 2

[wolfbait]

Page 3

[AspenBud]

Page 3

Even that guy states they expanded their range and weren't released in WA. Thanks Wolfbait.

[wolfbait]

Page 3

Even that guy states they expanded their range and weren't released in WA. Thanks Wolfbait.

No problem A-bud, like the letter above, it's how the wolves expanded thats going to cause WDFW problems in the future. How will WDFW explain the lie that the wolves "Naturally Migrated" to WA?

[Special T]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

[idahohuntr]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

[bearpaw]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

[AspenBud]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I think the bolded part is the point. On one day guys want to argue we had a little Rocky mountain/Cascade wolf in Idaho and Washington, they claim it even still existed, the next day those same guys will say a wolf is a wolf and even argue that there is no difference between wolves in Canada, Russia, or the Southwest. It makes them sound like they are basically trying to throw anything out there and hoping that something will stick. While I agree that the actions of Fish and Wildlife might seems shifty on the matter, desperately throwing random and conflicting claims about wolves makes folks look more like they just don't want wolves, not that they are concerned with any real science. I swear, sometimes I think the state could come out on the side of wolf management and people would still claim a big conspiracy and claim up was actually down...and then change their mind the next day if the state agreed with that.

[AspenBud]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

The original deal was wolves in Yellowstone. No more, no less. At least that was my understanding when the matter started.

[Special T]

If i use some logic to refute an opposing  opinion that in NO WAY means I believe it. It means that I am giving contrary evidence to the rules the DRIVER set up.

I have not changed my views, AND you are 100% correct YNP was SUPPOSED to be an experiment and should have been contained in the park... We all know that that was not the original intent. 

[AspenBud]

I have not changed my views, AND you are 100% correct YNP was SUPPOSED to be an experiment and should have been contained in the park... We all know that that was not the original intent. 

I think it was the original intent for some. But Yellowstone is where all the problems started. Ranchers howled about livestock losses when arguing against the idea before wolves were released, that started the snowball that led a lot of people to go "oh those ranchers, they'll argue against anything that might affect livestock." Later people decided they had so much success they needed to expand the idea.

I have to admit, I was surprised when I found out they were being released elsewhere years ago now.

[bearpaw]

I'm not sure if the original deal was YNP only. 

USFWS said they had wolves in NW Montana and when the releases were planned it was for x number of wolves in YNP and y number of wolves in central Idaho with the intention of those wolves in three areas to populate the NRM, three states 10 BP's each for delisting.

The Idaho legislature did not approve the release, the director of IDFG went against the legislature and permitted the release.

[idahohuntr]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

Your confusing state and federal ESA requirements.  USFWS set recovery goals and those have not changed.  They were sued multiple times during attempts to de-list throughout the 2000's and federal judges got involved.  USFWS and states always argued that reocvery goals were met, if there were changes to criteria it was solely out of a federal court order.  Fortunately, Simpson and Tester passed a law de-listing what any reasonable person could see was a recovered population...a de-listing law I might add that was opposed by Big Game Forever (BGF) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) 

I think scientists by and large are using best available data to classify wolves appropriately.  It is not logical and not supported by the evidence that wolves in inland central bc or alberta are any different at the subspecies level from wolves originally found in ID, MT, WY, WA.  That does not mean there are not different subspecies of wolves...sounds like there is merit to coastal/marine island wolves vs. inland wolves 

Now, for the 15 BP goal in WA...that is to meet state de-listing criteria and to my knowledge that has not changed.  Wolves are federally de-listed in E. Wa a la Simpson-Tester.

Bottom line, you asked how I can flatly say the goal posts have not changed...simple...I deal in facts and the agencies have not changed goal posts.  Others through the courts have muddied where those posts should be...but that is not nor has it ever been the doing of any state or federal agency. 

Maybe a better question for you would be: Given that BGF and SFW worked to try and stop the Simpson-Tester de-listing law, will you publicly denounce both of those organizations for putting their financial interest way ahead of the every day sportsmen whom they supposedly serve?

[bearpaw]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

Your confusing state and federal ESA requirements.  USFWS set recovery goals and those have not changed.  They were sued multiple times during attempts to de-list throughout the 2000's and federal judges got involved.  USFWS and states always argued that reocvery goals were met, if there were changes to criteria it was solely out of a federal court order.  Fortunately, Simpson and Tester passed a law de-listing what any reasonable person could see was a recovered population...a de-listing law I might add that was opposed by Big Game Forever (BGF) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) 

I think scientists by and large are using best available data to classify wolves appropriately.  It is not logical and not supported by the evidence that wolves in inland central bc or alberta are any different at the subspecies level from wolves originally found in ID, MT, WY, WA.  That does not mean there are not different subspecies of wolves...sounds like there is merit to coastal/marine island wolves vs. inland wolves 

Now, for the 15 BP goal in WA...that is to meet state de-listing criteria and to my knowledge that has not changed.  Wolves are federally de-listed in E. Wa a la Simpson-Tester.

Bottom line, you asked how I can flatly say the goal posts have not changed...simple...I deal in facts and the agencies have not changed goal posts.  Others through the courts have muddied where those posts should be...but that is not nor has it ever been the doing of any state or federal agency. 

Maybe a better question for you would be: Given that BGF and SFW worked to try and stop the Simpson-Tester de-listing law, will you publicly denounce both of those organizations for putting their financial interest way ahead of the every day sportsmen whom they supposedly serve?

You are a funny guy. 

Would you be willing to denounce Back County Hunters & Anglers for their association with anti-hunting groups.

[bearpaw]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

Your confusing state and federal ESA requirements.  USFWS set recovery goals and those have not changed.  They were sued multiple times during attempts to de-list throughout the 2000's and federal judges got involved.  USFWS and states always argued that reocvery goals were met, if there were changes to criteria it was solely out of a federal court order.  Fortunately, Simpson and Tester passed a law de-listing what any reasonable person could see was a recovered population...a de-listing law I might add that was opposed by Big Game Forever (BGF) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) 

I think scientists by and large are using best available data to classify wolves appropriately.  It is not logical and not supported by the evidence that wolves in inland central bc or alberta are any different at the subspecies level from wolves originally found in ID, MT, WY, WA.  That does not mean there are not different subspecies of wolves...sounds like there is merit to coastal/marine island wolves vs. inland wolves 

Now, for the 15 BP goal in WA...that is to meet state de-listing criteria and to my knowledge that has not changed.  Wolves are federally de-listed in E. Wa a la Simpson-Tester.

Bottom line, you asked how I can flatly say the goal posts have not changed...simple...I deal in facts and the agencies have not changed goal posts.  Others through the courts have muddied where those posts should be...but that is not nor has it ever been the doing of any state or federal agency. 

Maybe a better question for you would be: Given that BGF and SFW worked to try and stop the Simpson-Tester de-listing law, will you publicly denounce both of those organizations for putting their financial interest way ahead of the every day sportsmen whom they supposedly serve?

I like to deal in facts too, please show me where Washington having 15 BP's was included in the original wolf recovery plan.

[idahohuntr]

Management is NOT possible if the goal posts keep moving. Management will not be possible in this state since we are hambstrung by our ridiculus trapping rules.

Management of our Predators that we CAN hunt is horrbile, so why would we expect something different from wolves?

My point is both sides have moved the goal posts when it suited them. Until everyone decides to get rational, ha ha, nothing will change.

Those of us opposed to wolves and how all this being handled are NOT in the drivers seat, so how is My responses or anyone else Extreme? The Agencies have set the stage and made THIER case. Many have responded with all kinds of rebuttal and your welcome to ignore them. YOU should be concerned with the flip flopping of the agencies positions BECAUSE that is an indication  that they are NOT using good science to "manage"? Pointing out that there are extreams on both sides does NOT negate the poor logic used by WDFW or USFS in their justification of THIER actions. The fact that I point out the Hypocrisy of those who control the situation IS NOT EXTREAME! Its using logic and stating facts.

I don't believe the agencies have flip-flopped or moved goal posts at all...they have been sued in federal court over de-listing many times and judges have made rulings that have not always been sensible IMO...but my understanding is that the agencies have always acknowledged wolves from bc and alberta are the same as what is/was in the rest of the NRM states.  They are using good science, even if the extremists argue/sue/cry about wanting it their way. 

Nearly everyone on this forum knows the original deal was for 10 BP's in three NRM states. The number of states for recovery has been expanded and they even want 15 BP's in Washington. There were numerous recognized species of wolves until just before introduction of the Canadian wolves into the NRM. They reclassified most sub-species as one wolf which surely benefitted moving Canadian wolves southward. Then they decided they need to reclassify to have the Mexican wolf and now the coastal wolf. How can you flatly say the goal posts have not changed.

Your confusing state and federal ESA requirements.  USFWS set recovery goals and those have not changed.  They were sued multiple times during attempts to de-list throughout the 2000's and federal judges got involved.  USFWS and states always argued that reocvery goals were met, if there were changes to criteria it was solely out of a federal court order.  Fortunately, Simpson and Tester passed a law de-listing what any reasonable person could see was a recovered population...a de-listing law I might add that was opposed by Big Game Forever (BGF) and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) 

I think scientists by and large are using best available data to classify wolves appropriately.  It is not logical and not supported by the evidence that wolves in inland central bc or alberta are any different at the subspecies level from wolves originally found in ID, MT, WY, WA.  That does not mean there are not different subspecies of wolves...sounds like there is merit to coastal/marine island wolves vs. inland wolves 

Now, for the 15 BP goal in WA...that is to meet state de-listing criteria and to my knowledge that has not changed.  Wolves are federally de-listed in E. Wa a la Simpson-Tester.

Bottom line, you asked how I can flatly say the goal posts have not changed...simple...I deal in facts and the agencies have not changed goal posts.  Others through the courts have muddied where those posts should be...but that is not nor has it ever been the doing of any state or federal agency. 

Maybe a better question for you would be: Given that BGF and SFW worked to try and stop the Simpson-Tester de-listing law, will you publicly denounce both of those organizations for putting their financial interest way ahead of the every day sportsmen whom they supposedly serve?

You are a funny guy. 

Would you be willing to denounce Back County Hunters & Anglers for their association with anti-hunting groups.

It really would be funny if it were not true.  They tried to stop wolf de-listing because it would cause them financial harm...or they are run by a bunch of really dumb people...I'm not sure which.  Do you know why they tried to stop wolves from being de-listed so we could hunt them?  Was it greed or stupidity?

[idahohuntr]

I like to deal in facts too, please show me where Washington having 15 BP's was included in the original wolf recovery plan.

Wolves are federally de-listed/recovered in E. Wa, bearpaw.    There is no 15 BP recovery goal in WA in the "original" wolf plan. 

The 15 BP is a STATE OF WASHINGTON ESA recovery requirement.  Wa state has its own ESA legislation.  I am surprised that being an outftitter in this state you were not aware of this. It is perhaps why you and I disagree so much, I'm not sure you fully understand the situation in Washington State and why we (hunters) must appeal to the non-hunting voters...unlike Idaho or Montana where they do not have such burdensome state endangered species legislation.   

[bearpaw]

I like to deal in facts too, please show me where Washington having 15 BP's was included in the original wolf recovery plan.

Wolves are federally de-listed/recovered in E. Wa, bearpaw.    There is no 15 BP recovery goal in WA in the "original" wolf plan. 

The 15 BP is a STATE OF WASHINGTON ESA recovery requirement.  Wa state has its own ESA legislation.  I am surprised that being an outftitter in this state you were not aware of this. It is perhaps why you and I disagree so much, I'm not sure you fully understand the situation in Washington State and why we (hunters) must appeal to the non-hunting voters...unlike Idaho or Montana where they do not have such burdensome state endangered species legislation.

I'm not surprised by your comment, I see that attitude often. I suppose I'm just supposed to succumb to your agenda, NOT. But it's probably easiest for now to just agree to disagree, I've got too many irons in the fire at the moment to dig up supporting data of how the goal posts have been changed along the way.

Without getting into many details, the fact is that the original wolf proposal is much different than the end wolf results.