interesting article on coastal vs inland wolves

[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