Bad news-wolves in the Blue Mtns

[FrankDown]

It seems that I remember reading something that wolves came across the strait at about the same time that humans did.  Possibly with the humans.  I dont think they were here before humans, maybe the whites, but not necessarily before humans.  That is a moot point IMO though. 

I do think that it will be hard to manage them with the anti's gunning for protection, like in the other western states.  if a problem arises though it may make it difficult to take care of it. 

As far as an intervention of humans thing goes, hunting period is an intervention, and without hunting, who cares what happens to them?  Remember that hunters are the ones that started a lot of reintroduction programs to begin wtih, and brought back numbers to those species that were dwindling.  Not tree huggers.  I think that emotion plays too much in some management practices and definately antis.  Look at it naturally and scientifically.  Wolves are natural predators here, yes they will eat elk, its possible that they will eat your little girl or a dog out the backyard, but most likely they will be introduced, grow in numbers, and not be managed like in the other states they were reintroduced to.  As long as they are manged properly is the key.  Theres other big proplems with the states game and animal management philosophy that need to be addressed before they throw in another variable.

[hunt4]

1) The wolves dropped into Yellowstone Park were not Rocky Mountain wolves, known in the scientific community as Canis Lupus Irremotus, a smaller animal that hunted in pairs and was the indigenous species in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Rather, they were the Canadian Grey Wolf, a super sized predator hunting in super sized packs that evolved to chase caribou herds for hundreds of miles.
 

(2) Federal implementation of wolf introduction has violated the Endangered Species act (ESA) on virtually every count.  Dr. Richard Mitchell, PhD., one of the original authors of the ESA, traveled from Washington, D.C., on January 11, 2000, to testify in Billings [Montana] at the Predator Management Symposium.   Dr. Mitchell stated to an audience of several hundred, including Sen. Conrad Burns, that it was a violation of the ESA to dump the Canadian Grey[wolf] on top of the Rocky Mountain wolf.

 

(3) The Rocky Mountain wolf didn't need to be ‘re-introduced’ -- because it was already there.  Locals testified at the aforementioned event to having seen the native wolf in and around the park prior to the "soft" introduction of this "experimental-non essential" predator that was already migrating into Montana naturally from Canada.

[NWWABOWHNTR]

Very disturbing.....

http://www.saveelk.com/

[WAcoyotehunter]

1) The wolves dropped into Yellowstone Park were not Rocky Mountain wolves, known in the scientific community as Canis Lupus Irremotus, a smaller animal that hunted in pairs and was the indigenous species in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Rather, they were the Canadian Grey Wolf, a super sized predator hunting in super sized packs that evolved to chase caribou herds for hundreds of miles.
 

(2) Federal implementation of wolf introduction has violated the Endangered Species act (ESA) on virtually every count.  Dr. Richard Mitchell, PhD., one of the original authors of the ESA, traveled from Washington, D.C., on January 11, 2000, to testify in Billings [Montana] at the Predator Management Symposium.   Dr. Mitchell stated to an audience of several hundred, including Sen. Conrad Burns, that it was a violation of the ESA to dump the Canadian Grey[wolf] on top of the Rocky Mountain wolf.

 

(3) The Rocky Mountain wolf didn't need to be ‘re-introduced’ -- because it was already there.  Locals testified at the aforementioned event to having seen the native wolf in and around the park prior to the "soft" introduction of this "experimental-non essential" predator that was already migrating into Montana naturally from Canada.

Let me guess- this info is all from the very scientific minds over at "save our elk".  They twist the facts as well as the anti's do, only in the opposite direction.

Also- addressing #3 there have been wolves reported in WA off and on for the last 50 yrs. So, there is a high likelihood that some/many of WA's wolves are not the reintroduced wolves, but a population that has been around a long time. 

[hunt4]

Let me guess- this info is all from the very scientific minds over at "save our elk".  They twist the facts as well as the anti's do, only in the opposite direction.

No somthing out of Bozeman, Montana newspaper

[docsven]

"Also- addressing #3 there have been wolves reported in WA off and on for the last 50 yrs. So, there is a high likelihood that some/many of WA's wolves are not the reintroduced wolves, but a population that has been around a long time."

Good Point-