The truth about the wolves

[wolfbait]

The truth about the wolves



February 9, 2010



There is a secret, hiding in plain sight, that every American should know about.  Your life may depend on it.



In the mid-1990's, wolves were "re-introduced" to areas of the West under the auspices of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with the "Endangered Species Act".



I will digress here for a moment and explain why quotes are used around the word "re-introduced".  The word re-introduced means to bring back a species indigenous to the area from which it has disappeared or is in danger of becoming extinct.  



The wolf indigenous to most parts of the West is called the Timber Wolf or Gray Wolf (canis lupus irremotus).  The male of these species, on average, is about 75 lbs; the female is smaller as is usual with most species.



In hearing about wolves invading Idaho, which has the largest contiguous wilderness area of any state in the lower 48, I kept hearing stories about huge animals.  One gent told me that a wolf crossed the road in front of his pickup and stood as tall as the hood.  I rather discounted it as the proverbial "fish story" where the fish gets bigger with each telling of the story.  What he was describing was one big animal considering his pickup was a 4x4.



I would learn that he wasn't telling a "fish story".  The wolf brought in and turned loose in the Yellowstone National Park and other parts of central Idaho is the Canadian Gray Wolf.  If this article is correct, the species of wolf imported is the canis lupus occidentallis or MacKenzie Valley Wolf, a large wolf from Western Canada.  One website states that this wolf was imported from Alberta.  In searching, there is the canis lupus columbianus, a large wolf found in Yukon, British Columbia and Alberta.  Another, canis lupus griseoalbus, is a large wolf found in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.  Whether one or more of these species, what is obvious is that they are not indigenous to the lower 48.



Males, on average, weigh 130 lbs, the females somewhat smaller.  These animals are huge, far outweighing any dog but the mastiff breeds.  Were they to stand on their hind legs, put their feet on the shoulders of most people, they would be looking down at them!



Let me be perfectly clear; the Canadian Gray Wolf is not indigenous to the lower 48 states.  To claim they are a "re-introduction" is not only misleading but purposely misleading.



That would not be the first or last problem with the "re-introduction" of wolves.



In a letter, dated October 3, 1993,  Mr Will Graves of Maryland wrote a letter to Ed Bangs, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Project Leader for the introduction of the Canadian Gray, in Helena, MT.  Graves, the



"author of “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, has studied wolves for many years. He has traveled to Russia and surrounding nations to gather information, historic documents, etc., to learn more about wolves, their diseases and the impact these animals have had on humans for centuries. This is the basis of his book."  (source)



Graves' letter addressed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) presented by Bangs.  In his letter, Graves expressed his concerns regarding introducing wolves to the United States period,



"I support Alternative 3, the No Wolf Alternative.



1.  Diseases, Worms and Parasites.  I was surprised that the DEIS did not make a detailed study on the impact issue of diseases, worms, and parasites (page 9).  I believe an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is not complete without a detailed study covering the diseases, worms and parasites that wolves would carry, harbor, and spread around in the YNP (Yellowstone National Park) and in Idaho.  The study should cover the potential negative impact of these diseases on wild and domestic animals, and on humans.  I believe the potential negative impact of these diseases is a valid reason not to reintroduce wolves into YNP and to Idaho."



Mr Graves concerns, outlined in the letter, while very valid, were ignored, not only by Ed Bangs but also by the USFWS.



Everyone should read Will Graves' letter.  It is very important.  And what it makes so very obvious is that the American people have been lied to, if only by omission, about the reality of the wolves introduced which environmentalists would have you believe was a "re-introduction" of an indigenous species.



What are the "diseases, worms and parasites" spoken of by Graves?  Besides hoof and mouth disease, anthrax of a less virulent variety than the variety we are used to hearing about, Neospora caninum which causes late-term abortions in cattle, and an increased incidence of rabies, these wolves carry a parasitic tapeworm.  



When most of us envision a tapeworm, we think of the kind carried by dogs and cats and for which pet owners worm them and that are very visible in the scat.



This tapeworm is of a different variety.  This tapeworm is a three-millimeter-long tapeworm known as Echinococcus granulosus which causes a disease called Alveolar Hydatid Disease (also known as Cystic Hydatid Disease).  The disease presents in the form of cysts in vital organs such as the liver, lungs and brain.  The disease can be asymptomatic, growing and spreading for years without detection.   Alveolar Hydatid Disease presented a 70% mortality rate in 1980 among Alaskan Eskimos diagnosed.  More recently, some success has been achieved in treating the disease without surgery.



This parasite has been found in two-thirds of wolf carcasses examined in Idaho.  From the wolf, the parasite is spread to other warm blooded animals, mostly through contact with dried wolf scat in the wild.  



Infection of ungulates (hoofed animals) is obviously through air currents spreading the eggs to grass and surrounding vegetation that ungulates eat.  A dog, sniffing the dried scat of a wolf, as dogs do with the scat of any animal, is sufficient to cause the eggs to go airborne, infecting the dog's nostrils, mouth and getting on the fur where they can be transmitted to anyone handling or petting the dog.



Any warm-blooded animal, wild or domestic, large or small, is susceptible as are humans.



How easy is it to contract the parasite that causes the disease?  If you listen to the USFWS field biologists, and pro-wolf advocates, not very.  Biologists and scientists not on the government payroll, however, say otherwise.  The Centers for Disease Control has issued a warning about the disease.



Dr Val Geist, Professional Biologist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Calgary, in an e-mail to a concerned citizen, had this to say,



It is well known that domestic dogs play a very large risk factor in hydatid disease. Unlike in Northern Canada or Alaska, in the West one is dealing with much greater densities of people, dogs and carrier species such as deer or elk. High incidents of the parasite in wolves and coyotes and a high infestation rate with cysts in lungs and liver of deer and elk, put at risk the ranching, farming and rural communities. In winter time deer and elk will frequently be found on ranches close to communities. Dogs from ranches, farms and hamlets will have access to winter killed carcasses of deer and elk as well as to offal left in the field during the hunting season. Once infected with dog tape worm, the ranch and house dogs will contaminate the yard, porches, living rooms etc with hydatid eggs. There is no escape from this! Ten to twenty years down the road, hydatid disease will raise its head, in particular in persons who as toddlers crawled over floors walked over by people and dogs carrying in hydatid eggs from the outside. Please inform yourself what this is likely to mean in terms of prognosis, suffering and costs!



What does Dr Geist suggest, in dealing with the probability of coming in contact with infected animals?



"1.) Assuming the number of wolf packs can be reduced so as to retain a vibrant, abundant prey base, that developmental studies proceed on how to create bait stations that are accepted by wolves, with bait containing anti-helminthic drugs that are readily eaten by wolves. I am aware that this will not be a quick project. Rather I expect that wolves will accept bait stations, let alone the bait, only very gradually. It will take time, experimentation and sophisticated know how to make bait stations operational. However, once accepted by wolves, the bait stations will break the hydatid cycle between wolves and ungulates. Over time, this will lead to diminished infections of deer and elk, and this with re-infection with the parasite by wolves and coyotes.



2.) Unfortunately, under moist and cold conditions hydatid eggs remain viable for months and may even infect after three and a half years. Under dry, hot conditions the eggs die quickly. Burning the under story in forests will not eliminate the dangers from hydatid eggs, but will certainly reduce such. It's a policy worth looking at.



3.) Simultaneously, a thorough campaign must be initiated to regularly de-worm dogs in danger areas as well as encourage specific hygienic measures. Here it means winning the ears and the trust of the rural communities."



What are anti-helminthic drugs?  They are medications that rid the animal of parasitic worms.  Under this classification, there are different types of drugs depending on the parasite.



Dr Geist closed his e-mail to the concerned citizen as follows:



"Wolves have been exterminated from lived in landscapes universally because they, or their diseases, posed a serious threat to affected people, livestock and wild life. The lessons from history are that we can at best live with wolves if such are relatively few, the abundance of natural prey is high, and the risk from diseases non-existent."



Was this disease in the lower 48 before the introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf?  Previous to the introduction of this wolf, the parasite was seldom found in the lower 48 among the coyote and fox population.



That is no longer the case and the disease is now a threat, especially if the people now subjected to the growing wolf population and habitat are unaware of its presence, and especially as there is no indication that anything is being done to eradicate it.



Did the government know the concerns about diseases carried by wolves before the Canadian Gray Wolf was introduced?  Considering the letter of Graves to Bangs in 1993, they obviously did.  



And quite obviously, in total disregard for the health and well-being of the American people, the U.S. Government introduced the wolf on behalf of radical environmental groups.  



And the government wonders why people have trust issues.



Another problem is that these wolves are predators of a different sort.  As opposed to other predators like cougar and bear that kill for food, the Canadian Gray Wolf kills indiscriminately—they kill for sport; they kill because the animal is there and convenient; they kill because they want to.



There is a website, on the internet, that people who think these wolves are just harmless, nice little puppy-dog-like creatures should visit.  That website is SaveElk.  Right there, on the home page, is the picture of a man holding the head of an elk after wolves brought her down and ripped the fetus she carried from her body.  She was then left to die and died, obviously traumatized, in the man's arms.



On that website, you will see picture after picture of cow elk from which wolves ripped the fetus and left the cow to die.  The decimation of the ungulate populations in Idaho is well under way.  This is the reality of wolves.  Go here to see how vast the wolf activity is in Idaho.



Also there, on the home page, is the picture of the remains of a Black Labrador Retriever.  The owner reached that dog within minutes of the wolf attack.  All that was left was the head and spine!  How would you like to find your beloved family pet like that?  Would you want your children to see that?



Wolves kill for sport, often bringing an animal down, mauling it, ripping the gut open, then leaving the animal to die a slow, torturous death.  This picture (used with permission) is of one such kill.  That this animal died a slow death is apparent from the blood pool around it; the animal slowly bled out.  There are animal carcasses, just like this one, spread all over the Idaho Wilderness area.



Another known fact about wolves that the pro-wolf advocates don't want people to know is that wolves do not necessarily kill their prey before feeding on it!  Here is a picture of a deer, still alive, her back quarters mangled beyond recovery, as the wolf walks away.  That deer obviously died as slow and as torturous a death as the elk pictured here.



The Canadian Gray Wolf is driving the coyotes, foxes and native wolf out of areas they take over for the simple reason that if they remain, the Canadian Gray Wolf will kill them.  The same is true of the cougar, bobcat, lynx, wolverine, bear and other predatory animal populations.



Timber Wolves, indigenous to the Pacific Northwest, are now truly endangered; a fact which the pro-wolf advocates are not concerned about, making it obvious that their agenda has nothing to do with restoring an "endangered" species.  Pro-wolf advocates have made it clear that implementing a radical environmental agenda is the sole goal of their efforts; that "wolf recovery" has been a fraud from the start.  



One rabid pro-wolf advocate filed a freedom of information request on the Idaho Fish and Game Department, to acquire the names of all who filled their legally obtained, and paid for, wolf tag in 2009.  That individual then posted those names on a website that masked his identity.  But, being unable to contain his glee at having done this, he then took out an ad in the local newspaper, pointing people to the website where he listed the names.  While he claimed his actions were not intended to incite harassment, he was also quoted as saying,



"They're paying for the privilege to use a resource that belongs to all of us … They've made a conscious decision to do something that other people in this state disapprove of."



But he didn't intend to incite harassment?  Really?



Did this pro-wolf advocate request of the Idaho Fish and Game Department to know who all had filled tags to legally hunt deer, elk, moose and bear?  After all, there might be those who "disapprove" of hunting those, too; and aren't deer, elk, moose and bear just as much (if not more) a "resource" as wolves?



This individual, who would have you believe he didn't do this to incite harassment, did not, however, request that information.   Quite obviously, his agenda has nothing to do with conservation, the eco-system, or the environment.  If he did, he would care about the decimation of Idaho ungulate populations by wolves.



Like Al Gore and his "global warming" agenda based on pseudo-science, on which he has made millions, the pro-wolf advocates have an agenda which is about money and control, just like global warming is.



I've heard a lot of people compare wolves to those nice little neighborhood puppy dogs.  The number of people who have been attacked by wolves is growing.  The number who have been killed is also growing.  In his letter to Bangs, Graves pointed out that people in certain parts of Siberia do not venture outside at night because, if they do, their odds of being attacked by a wolf are substantial.  Here is part of an e-mail from a Washingtonian,



"I can tell you I have had firsthand experience with these wolves in Washington, we have had them looking in our house windows, they have killed deer within a 100 yards of our house, I have shot at them to scare them off and they turn and lope right at me going past me at 50 yards. These wolves are not afraid of people and they are huge. We don’t go out at night to let the dogs pee without taking a big flashlight and gun, I spend many nights at the barns watching out for our stock when the wolves are in close to us. One of the reasons that the wolf diseases will spread and be easy to come in contact with will be that there is too high of a population of wolves."



If a Canadian Gray Wolf can crush the rib bones of a deer, just how safe do you truly believe you are if you come face to face with this predator without the means to defend yourself?  If three wolves are not afraid to take on the majestic Grizzly, do you think they are afraid to take you on?



What chances do you have of surviving Hydatid Disease if contracted?  Do you really believe that, once it invades the population, it will be given the same attention as, say, AIDs?



The bottom line here is that the American people have been, and are being, lied to about the wolf and the introduction of it to the lower 48 states.  That they are being lied to is pretty good indication that the real agenda is other than the one presented.



Get informed, get involved.  Save our country for our people, not the rabid, radical environmentalists who have a goal that has nothing to do with freedom, liberty or justice but everything to do with money and control.



Credit for much of the material used in this article goes to SaveElk.com who has done a tremendous job of bringing a lot of information together that tells a story counter to the one people are being told by the government, the media, and the environmentalists.



Another excellent website is Washington Wolf Information.



© 2010 Lynn M Stuter – All Rights Reserved.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Males, on average, weigh 130 lbs Funny that the LARGEST wolf harvested in MT was 117 lbs...what gives? 

Ten to twenty years down the road, hydatid disease will raise its head, in particular in persons who as toddlers crawled over floors walked over by people and dogs carrying in hydatid eggs from the outside.  It's been ~15 years since introduction...where is this horrible pandemic worm?

I've heard a lot of people compare wolves to those nice little neighborhood puppy dogs.  The number of people who have been attacked by wolves is growing.  The number who have been killed is also growing.  In his letter to Bangs, Graves pointed out that people in certain parts of Siberia do not venture outside at night because, if they do, their odds of being attacked by a wolf are substantial.  Here is part of an e-mail from a Washingtonian,  It's true that wolves in Siberia attack people...had they introduced wolves from Siberia I would be nervous.  How many attacks have these introduced wolves been responsible for in the US?

"I can tell you I have had firsthand experience with these wolves in Washington, we have had them looking in our house windows, they have killed deer within a 100 yards of our house, I have shot at them to scare them off and they turn and lope right at me going past me at 50 yards. These wolves are not afraid of people and they are huge. We don't go out at night to let the dogs pee without taking a big flashlight and gun, I spend many nights at the barns watching out for our stock when the wolves are in close to us. One of the reasons that the wolf diseases will spread and be easy to come in contact with will be that there is too high of a population of wolves." Pictures please...I think I've heard this "tame as a housecat" discussion before but somehow there are never pictures to show these wolves so close to the house...what gives? If they're so close and tame take a picture.

If a Canadian Gray Wolf can crush the rib bones of a deer, just how safe do you truly believe you are if you come face to face with this predator without the means to defend yourself?  If three wolves are not afraid to take on the majestic Grizzly, do you think they are afraid to take you on?  Wait a minute...I thought they were in your yard with mundane regularity- how have you survived so long against those odds? 

Saveelk is BS propaganda and is about as accurate with facts as the PETA website.    I'm not really pro wolf, but I appreciate factual information to make an informed desision.  I also see them as another big game animal, not a bloodthirsty killer.  They do what predators do... 

[WAcoyotehunter]

A well written artical

http://www.westernwolves.org/index.php/hunting-in-wolf-country

Wild Lands, Wolves and Wapiti
by Corey Fisher, Montana Hunter

I didn’t grow up around wolves, or elk. I was raised in rural southern Michigan where the biggest wild canines were coyotes and the whitetail deer—while corn fed and fat—were nothing compared to elk. It was farm country and the big patches of timber were only 40 acres. A desire for open spaces and big country took me to college in northern Wisconsin, where the Chequamegon National Forest served as my introduction to our precious public lands heritage and also my first encounter with wolves.

While deer hunting the fall of my freshman year, I was watching the sunset and waited for a buck to come out of a cedar swamp when a sound from a couple ridges away sent shivers up my spine. These were not coyotes yapping as I was used to, but honest-to-God wolves howling through the cold November air. Walking out of the woods to my truck, I realized that I wasn’t alone at the top of the food chain in the Northwoods. I knew that there were a couple of packs in the region, but the actual confirmation that we were hunting in the same territory was thrilling. I’d come looking for big, wild country and I’d found it. Knowing that these animals were still here made me look at my new hunting area in a different way. This was a place that was whole—where the workings of nature still ticked. The fact that I, too, was part of it all was uplifting.

Later, I found myself lucky enough to be living and working in western Montana. Ever since my youth, spent chasing whitetails in woodlots, I’d wanted to hunt elk. The mystique of the backcountry and stories of wapiti that roamed the mountains beckoned me.

Searching the ample public lands in my new home, I focused on the Pintler and Sapphire Ranges as the place where I would hunt elk and fulfill a lifelong desire. I’d heard about the wolves in the region, and how they affected elk movement, but there seemed to be plenty of elk around so I hunted them…and hunted and hunted and hunted. Sure, I found elk, mostly flashes of tan crashing through dense stands of lodgepole as I spooked yet another herd. As the season wore down, I realized that hiking for miles on end wasn’t going to cut it: I had to slow down and work to get in close if I was going to kill an elk.

After making a personal pact to stop chasing elk as if it were some cross-country marathon, and actually start hunting, I found myself slowly stalking down a ridge on a snowy afternoon in late November. Elk sign was everywhere: droppings, tracks, beds. But the snow showed their age and I was there a day late; another hundred yards and the reason was clear. Several sets of wolf tracks criss-crossed the ridge and I knew that continuing to hunt here on this day was futile. That evening I scoured my map, trying to decide where I’d go if I was an elk being hunted by man and canine. I settled on a long ridge about three miles from where I’d been hunting and set the alarm clock early.

Not long into the new day, it was clear I’d made a good choice. As I eased through fresh snow along the edge of a burn, and cow and a calf materialized in front of me, casually walking within fifty yards before entering the timber. The whole time they were unaware of my presence and I gained a boost of confidence that it was possible to sneak close enough to an elk to make a good shot. I began to think that I had crossed some intangible threshold that signified my ability—worth perhaps—of the keen responsibility and honor that killing an elk demands. I was deep in elk country, meeting Wapiti on their terms and turf, passing the tests of hearing, sight, and smell…tests honed through the ancient dance of predator and prey.

Nearing the end of the day, I began to drop off down a finger ridge that I figured would lead me to a creek, then camp, a hot meal, and stories of the day's events with my hunting partners. But I still snuck my way along through the snow, pausing to scan ahead of me, and down into the draw below.

“There’s an elk.”

The matter-of-fact thought entered my brain shortly after my eyes saw a patch of tawny hide bedded in a tangle of deadfall one hundred yards below. Raising my binoculars, I could see that it was a bull and my legs started to shake. Easing into the prone position behind the trunk of a burnt lodgepole, I found the bull in my riflescope and confirmed that he had the required four-inch long brow times. Trying to settle the bucking crosshairs, I took a couple deep breaths, forcing myself to focus my excitement. The crosshairs came to rest solidly behind the bull’s shoulder and the shot echoed through the valley.

Since then, I have continued to hunt and kill elk in country where elk and hunters (of the two and four-legged variety) still match wits, and I like being part of it. There are a lot of places where a person can hunt knowing that they are undisputedly at the top of the food chain—most of Montana and nearly all of America. But there are precious few places where that role is shared and up for grabs.

In a polarized issue, I’m neither a wolf lover nor hater. In country big enough to support wolves, I think that they deserve a place out there. I’ve been lucky enough to tromp around in a few of those places with rifle in hand and the land feels different. It is whole, and we are lucky that we can still feel that special sense of bigness, that this world is a heck of a lot more than ourselves. It is spiritual. But that doesn’t mean that wolves should be everywhere or expand unchecked. The reality is that we are not living in the natural world through which Lewis and Clark traversed. Much of the West has been “tamed,” it isn’t wild, and wolves don’t belong in a chopped up, fenced, cut-over, urbanized landscape. It is cliché, but wolves are a symbol of wilderness, and they deserve those wild lands in which to be wolves. Moreover, we as humans deserve that wild country to find ourselves, test our mettle, and get back to what it means to be self-sufficient, if only for a long weekend.

Wolves. They stir up the emotion of what has been and what we hope our world to be. Folks need to work together from the baseline where we live now, the habitat we have left, our needs as a society, the values of intact ecosystems, and find balance between man and wolf. In short, this is wildlife management; it isn’t perfect, but we are fortunate enough to have the North American Model of Wildlife Management, where wildlife belongs to all, and is managed through hunting to try and achieve that balance given the constraints of our ecosystems and society. As with all animals with populations healthy enough to be hunted, wolves should be managed under this model based on population objectives, management goals, and the carrying capacity of habitat and society.

Dry, soulless terms those are: population objectives, management goals, carrying capacity…but we are not living in a natural Utopia. We can coexist with wolves on the landscape, and have great elk hunting too. But we need to be cognizant of where wolves deserve to roam, protect our remaining backcountry areas, and “manage” wolves dependant on the constraining variables we have created on the landscapes of the West.



Corey Fisher lives and works in western Montana, where spends his free time casting flies to trout and hunting about anything in season. He can be contacted at fisherwild@hotmail.com.

[wolfbait]

Once again wacoyote your replies are no surprise. Idaho and Montana could sure use your expertise in managing their big game herds. Perhaps you can go and help them manage the elk herds that the wolves have disimated. The story you posted is like the fairy tales that Defenders of wildlife spread, you either need to get with the progam or head for the looney bin. Stradling the fence will give you two free acres.

[WAcoyotehunter]

The author wrote this for RMEF.  130 lb average size is a fairy tale (or a lie?) Tame wolves out your window is a fairy tale until you can produce some evidence of these "housecats".

Which program would you like me to get with? 

BTW- there is a wolf info meeting in Usk if anyone in NE washington would like to hear more info from a DFW bio.  see below.

USK, Wash. – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist Dana Base will discuss wolf biology and management at a presentation Feb. 23 in Usk.

The class, titled “They’re Back! Wolves in Pend Oreille County,” is sponsored by WSU/Pend Oreille County Extension and the Kalispel Tribe Natural Resources Department. It runs from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at the Usk Community Hall, 2442 Black Road. Registration is $5, or participants can bring a nonperishable food bank donation.

To reserve a seat, participants should preregister by calling (509) 447-2401 or e-mailing cmack@wsu.edu.

[wolfbait]

wacoyote, once again you have overestimated your fame, I could careless what you believe or don't. I put wolf information on this forum for the people who are interested in the truth and not the useual horse*censored* that the defenders of wildlife are running around the country. Wolfbait

[WAcoyotehunter]

How do you explain the gross overestimate of the wolves weight?..over and over?  Shed some more light for us. 

[SkookumHntr]

-The male wolf I killed weighed 160lbs.

[wolfbait]

I think maybe you need to go to Idaho and talk to the folks who have shot a few of these wolves, or maybe take a class in estimating wieghts of animals, for instance I can look ot a horse and tell you about what he will weigh and be real close. I have seen these wolves up real close, I have a ranch dog that weighs 63 pounds, the wolves that we have around here are three times his size. So I would say that most of the wolves I have seen wiegh in around 140 pounds, and some a little more. But like you keep saying, you don't believe anything unless you see it with your own eyes. So there you are.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Here is the harvest info from MT.  I have talked to a guy that killed a huge wolf in ID- it was 118lbs. and the biggest checked at the Cd'A office. 
The trapper that the WDFW used said he had never seen a wolf over 129lbs...so, who should I believe?  The guy that can field score a horse, or the guy that traps and weighs wolves for a living?

[NWBREW]

I am not going to get involved with the dispute two people have.....but the difference in wieght of 130 pounds and 117 pounds is only 13 pounds. I do not believe that to be grossly over estimated. just my  

wolfbait...thanks for posting that.

WAcoyotehunter...thanks for posting the info about the meeting in USK on Feb. 23. I believe that meeting would be very informative.

[bearpaw]

I think both wolfbait and wacoyote have both have provided us with some good info. But, I think you both ought to take a little breath, we are all on the same side, you are just seeing things a little differently. 

My son has hunted in the heart of Idaho's wolf country and been around their wolves a lot, he says the same thing, "they weigh 150#", I told him the recorded weights of what was killed were 118# or less and he said "BS". He thinks all the younger dumb ones are being shot. My point is that they do look that large to people who see them, whether some weigh that much or not is hard to say for sure, but people really believe they do weigh that much. No matter, 118 is still one hell of a canine. 

[Lowedog]

140 lbs shouldn't be too hard to believe...heck there was a 317lb cougar killed by Wenatchee this year!  Didn't you get the email?   

[bearpaw]

lowedog you are killing me...

[WAcoyotehunter]

140 lbs shouldn't be too hard to believe...heck there was a 317lb cougar killed by Wenatchee this year!  Didn't you get the email?   

good point...i got that email about ten times!