Wolves

[idahohuntr]

The native wolf to Washington is the Timber wolf. Smaller and not as aggressive than the bigger Canadian gray wolf. Talk to any old timer around here and they will tell you they have been around for years. Not many and they keep to themselves.  If anything these new wolves will move any native wolves out of the State.

I have heard this from several people but I can't find anything to back it up.  I am not saying you're wrong but everything I've seen is that Timber Wolf is used to describe a gray wolf in the forest.

ctwiggs - Generally, you will find credible evidence lacking for arguments that support canadian wolves being a different species than "native washington wolves" or that wolves have been transplanted into Washington.  In the absence of this factual data/evidence, one must resort to some interesting conspiracies to support either of these arguments.  There is no shortage of misinformation floating around on the internet...my advice: consider the source.  From there, its your decision on what you believe the evidence suggests. 

[boneaddict]

There are a few problems with trying to determine what sub-species of wolves were historically in Washington State. First problem is that wolf populations were heavily disrupted by time scientists started to collect data on the wolf populations, especially to the level of sub-species. The second problem is that with the wide range of habitats in Washington state there could have been more than one sub-species in the state. Third problem is that with the dynamics of wolf populations was a particular wolf was part of an established pack or in transit when the data was collected? Then you have the question, was the distribution of sub-species static or was one sub-species in the process of pushing another sub-species out? Along with that is the question about which sub-species a particular wolf belonged to. When you are working at a sub-species level things become a lot more complex. There can be some large differences in sub-species like between the keys deer in Florida and northern whitetails but a lot of the differences are much more subtle. With the advances in DNC there has been a lot of shuffling around especially at the sub-species level, not just with wolves but many species.     

100% true and don't forget interbreeding that can often occur at this level. 

[ctwiggs1]

The native wolf to Washington is the Timber wolf. Smaller and not as aggressive than the bigger Canadian gray wolf. Talk to any old timer around here and they will tell you they have been around for years. Not many and they keep to themselves.  If anything these new wolves will move any native wolves out of the State.

I have heard this from several people but I can't find anything to back it up.  I am not saying you're wrong but everything I've seen is that Timber Wolf is used to describe a gray wolf in the forest.

ctwiggs - Generally, you will find credible evidence lacking for arguments that support canadian wolves being a different species than "native washington wolves" or that wolves have been transplanted into Washington.  In the absence of this factual data/evidence, one must resort to some interesting conspiracies to support either of these arguments.  There is no shortage of misinformation floating around on the internet...my advice: consider the source.  From there, its your decision on what you believe the evidence suggests.

It seems to me, based on what Boneaddict has said and what we know other states have done, that we did in fact have what sound like the Cascade Mountain Wolf (although in extremely limited numbers) present in the state prior to the last decade. 

After other states re-introduced BPs of the larger sub species of gray wolf (same species, different sub species), it sounds like they spread pretty quickly throughout he NE, North-central, and now central Washington (and other "unconfirmed" areas as well).

I have a hard time subscribing to the theory that WDFW actually "brought" them here (willing to listen to arguments though).  Their website says they didn't.  I know that sounds ignorant/naive to some, but if we have members of SEAL Team 6 writing books about the Bin Ladin raid, Snowden talking about the NSA, etc..... I have a hard time believing all the WDFW people involved would have kept their mouths shut this whole time about wolves.  In the end they're still people.  Unless you guys know of somebody involved in the wolf relocation/planting that has spilled the beans?

PLEASE READ BEFORE GETTING ANGRY --> I am in no way backing the WDFW up on wolves.  I am not saying it's been managed correctly.  I'm just saying I don't know that I have seen any evidence (OPEN EARS THOUGH!) that they were planted.  Just wanted to clarify before I'm called a pinko commie tree hugger?  Or whatever we call them on this forum???   

That sound right to you guys?

Curtis

[idahohuntr]

I have a hard time subscribing to the theory that WDFW actually "brought" them here (willing to listen to arguments though).  Their website says they didn't.  I know that sounds ignorant/naive to some, but if we have members of SEAL Team 6 writing books about the Bin Ladin raid, Snowden talking about the NSA, etc..... I have a hard time believing all the WDFW people involved would have kept their mouths shut this whole time about wolves.  In the end they're still people.  Unless you guys know of somebody involved in the wolf relocation/planting that has spilled the beans?

That sound right to you guys?

Curtis

Sounds pretty logical to me.

[boneaddict]

I have just enough involvement to be skeptical. Eventhough I am wrapping ribs for the que at the moment I am not fashioning my tinfoil hat yet.  ITs difficult for me to wrap my head around the sudden expansion of them, and the shroud of secrecy that seem s to go along with their numbers leads just enough doubt in my mind everything has been above board.

[KFhunter]

They've documented releases in many other states, only reason to not document them in WA was they either did it too late to avoid the outrage and so did it secretly: or they didn't move them here at all.  It's mute point.  They released them in WY and thus culpable for their entire spread throughout the west.  They've also released them in several southern states and released other red wolves back east.  Unless some breakout court case takes USFWS to task it's of no consequence how they got here.   


We just need to manage them now, before the public gets so peeved off they start dropping magic meatballs near every wolf track they find. 



It's already happening I'm sure 

[boneaddict]

I ran into the desert wolves in NM.  THey were brought in and released in the Gila.   Talked to the warden about it.  He was not happy at all and was quite outspoken about it. 

[Alchase]

Selected Question From WDFW FAQ on Wolves:

GENERAL INFORMATION

Were wolves re-introduced to Washington?

No. Wolves are returning naturally from dispersing populations in nearby states and provinces. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) never reintroduced or transplanted wolves into Washington, nor has any other state or federal agency.

How did wolves re-populate the West?

In the mid 1990s, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) re-introduced 66 wolves from Canada into Montana, Wyoming and Idaho – 31 wolves into Yellowstone National Park and 35 into central Idaho. At that time, about 60 wolves were documented in the northwestern corner of Montana (see Map 1). Since then, wolf populations continue to recover throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains, where the USFWS documented more than 287 wolf packs in the 2011 (see Map 2 and Map 3). In fact, populations have recovered to the point that hunting and trapping are now legal in some states. As these wolf populations continue to recover and expand into other areas, it is likely that Washington will experience additional dispersing wolves in the near future.

A 2011 study, “Understanding People in Places,” conducted by Colorado State University for WDFW concluded that Washington residents generally found natural recolonization of the state by wolves to be acceptable (74.5%). However, residents in rural counties where wolves would most likely re-populate were less accepting than those in urban centers (see Map 4).

Aren’t the wolves that were reintroduced into Yellowstone non-native or different from earlier wolves?

No. There is no factual basis to the belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states.

Wolves are well known for their ability to disperse long distances from their birth sites. Radio-tracking data demonstrates that the wolves from southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta mixed with wolves from Idaho and Montana, along with those from farther north near the source locations of the animals used in the Idaho and Yellowstone reintroductions. When combined with recent research that reveals considerable genetic mixing among wolf populations in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, this information illustrates that wolves form a single population across the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and southern Canada.

Recent genetic research involving hundreds of wolves sampled from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the 1990s and 2000s found no evidence that the remnant native population of wolves differed from the reintroduced wolves. Thus, the wolves present in these states before wolf recovery began were genetically similar to those used in reintroductions into Yellowstone.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#1

I believe the Lookout Pack has the same genetics as wolves from the BC area.

Washington Wolf Packs: Teanaway

February 2013

The Teanaway pack has six members, including a successful breeding pair.

The breeding female of the Teanaway pack was re-captured in July 2012 to replace the radio collar that was originally placed on her in 2011. 

A yearling female, also radio-collared in 2011, dispersed from the Teanaway territory in March 2012 and traveled north and east into British Columbia where she was legally shot by a hunter in May 2012.

The pack is named for the Teanaway River, Ridge and Butte within its range in northern Kittitas County.

History

In response to remote camera images of a large wolf-like canids collected by citizen science volunteers in 2010, a survey effort that included WDFW, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Conservation Northwest, and the Western Transportation Institute, was conducted in the Teanaway Valley in the North Cascades. This effort produced multiple remote camera images of at least three large canids.

WDFW captured a lactating adult female in the pack in June 2011 and fitted her with a radio-collar. Genetic analysis confirmed this animal to be a descendant of the Lookout Pack. In September 2011, a yearling female was also captured and fitted with a radio-collar. The presence of a yearling wolf indicated this pack has been in the area since at least spring of 2010. At the end of 2011 there were three adults and four pups in this pack, and it was considered a successful breeding pair.

[boneaddict]

nor has any other state or federal agency.

Really?       Must mean everything else is true in the story as well.  Oh, they just mean into Wa

[Alchase]

The million dollar question:

Why now?

If all the above is true..............

Then lets look at this from a "Scientific Method"

Why did wolves decide in 2008 to start repopulating Washington?

Was there more game?
No!

Was there more available territory?
No!

Was there a lack of food in Canada?
No!

Was there over hunting in Canada?
No!

Was there a population explosion in Canada pushing young wolves out?
No!

What changed in the last decade, that instigated this southerly (and Westerly from Idaho) migration so to speak?

No answer is being provided.

That is what has been bothering me this whole time.
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.

Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.

[KFhunter]

nor has any other state or federal agency.

Really?       Must mean everything else is true in the story as well.  Oh, they just mean into Wa

exactly - I don't know what's so special about WA that they wouldn't release them here as well.

[idahohuntr]

The million dollar question:

Why now?

If all the above is true..............

Then lets look at this from a "Scientific Method"

Why did wolves decide in 2008 to start repopulating Washington?

Was there more game?
No!

Was there more available territory?
No!

Was there a lack of food in Canada?
No!

Was there over hunting in Canada?
No!

Was there a population explosion in Canada pushing young wolves out?
No!

What changed in the last decade, that instigated this southerly (and Westerly from Idaho) migration so to speak?

No answer is being provided.

That is what has been bothering me this whole time.
I can't believe all the Bio's in the WDFW and the other "agencies" can not or have not asked this same question and determined an answer.

Before trapping, DNA samples, collaring, tracking, adding another pack to the list, the question "Why Now" would have to have been answered.

I think the data pretty clearly shows why wolves started showing up far more regularly in/around 2008 in washington...it was near the peak of the exponential growth of wolf numbers in idaho.  As their population grew exponentially it expanded into washington and oregon.   

To the questions about why didn't they expand sooner from Canada...I don't have a good understanding of the productivity and limitations and dynamics that would affect wolves in BC.  For whatever reason, and there are probably many that unfortunately for some do not involve a grand conspiracy, they did not expand exponentially like Idaho wolves. Most likely it represents that bc had a stable population which was not growing a whole lot or was not as productive...haven't they always been able to hunt/trap wolves in BC? Either way, wolves inhabiting their former range (which has been vacant of substantial numbers of wolves for 70+ years in Idaho) followed a pretty expected path of exponential population growth and expansion. 

All of this seems pretty basic and easy to understand with minimal effort, so to the folks who say "the question remains unanswered"...I have to say again...you can lead a horse to water...

[Yelper Guy]

Saw a show about the collared wolves in and around Yellowstone.
It was amazing how far some of those animals traveled - multiple states in most cases.
As the packs in Montana & Idaho grew, more and more started venturing into new territory.
What better place to start a pack, without any other pack to compete with.

[bigmacc]

As others have said, they have been here the whole time. Through the 80-90s the lettered government entities were denying the existence of "establish" wolves.  They were on a blitz to discredit all wolf sightings as coyotes. Yet at the same time those flyers showing the differences between wolves and coyotes started to appear LOL.
Using the Lookout pack as an example, they blamed this pack for all the kills from Alta to Winthrop, some times on the same day!
That has got to be the biggest baddest most traveled pack of 6-8 wolves to ever exist. They denied the existence of a NW corner pack, yet pictures appeared of wolves the had been collared by a "Wolf Support group" years before their denials.

What has everyone going "Huh!"

Is the fact that they were here for decades, why the population "pack" explosion between 2008 (the first acknowledged pack) and now?

For decades, no measurable increase, in the six years they "admit" to wolf packs being in Washington, the acknowledged packs have grown to 14 Packs and over 60 animals.

Do the math:
1 pack, 6-8 animals in 2008
14 packs over 60 2014

That is over 1000% increase in six years!
This represents only the wolves they "admit" to being here.

Previous countless decades, with more game, more territory, no measurable gains.

And Alchase dont forget this,a Methow herd that was once 30 thousand strong not to long ago is now 10 thousand....things that make you go HMMMM!

[boneaddict]

Closer to 8500 now