Post by: JLS on January 07, 2014, 04:22:26 PM
Top Yellowstone Expert Takes on the Wolf Critics
Speaks to “Non Native Subspecies” Charge and “Surplus Killing”
01/05/14
Recently, the Montana Pioneer spoke with Doug Smith, Yellowstone National Park Wolf Project Leader and Senior Biologist at the Yellowstone Center for Resources, about the nature of the wolves introduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, including the “non native subspecies” charge advanced by critics, and about ongoing research on wolves in the park.
MP: What were the genetic sources of wolves introduced into YNP—where did the existing wolf population originate?
DS: Forty one wolves were introduced to YNP in 1995. There were 14 in 1995 from Alberta, and 17 in 1996 from British Columbia, and 10 in 1997 from near Choteau, Montana. We have genetic evidence that some of those wolves went on to breed. So, 10 of the wolves that were introduced were from Montana, and 31 were from Canada.
MP: What were the main characteristics that were different between the wolves from Canada and the wolves that pre-existed here in Yellowstone, say 150 years ago? Is that known?
DS: Not really. All we have are skulls to judge it from. What we know from studying the skulls are that the wolves are essentially the same. The Canadian wolves were about 7 to 8 percent larger than the pre-existing wolves of Yellowstone. Seven to eight percent is within the variation of size difference found in wolf skulls all over North America, so the difference is statistically insignificant. It is important to compare apples to apples, so-to-speak. Pups and immature animals are smaller, and males are about 20 percent larger than females, at full size. It is important to compare similar age and gender skulls to each other. So comparing the handful of skulls that were preserved here as museum samples with over 150 skulls of wolves that have died here since they were introduced, the skulls are essentially the same, but the ones from Canada are slightly bigger.
Taxonomically (classifying in categories such as genus, species, and subspecies), you get differences between species when there are limitations on their ability to mix genetically. Wolves are stopped by nothing. They will cross mountain ranges, rivers, even pack ice. That's how good this animal is at moving around. So what we have is this constant intermixing of genes that prevents them from becoming really different subspecies. Wolves origin-ated in North America a couple of million years ago. When glaciers connected Alaska and Russia, they crossed over into Russia. They got bigger over there. In the last 600,000 to 700,000 years differently evolved wolves have crossed back to North America in three waves. The remnants of the oldest wave of wolves returning to North America are now the most southern species, and also the smallest, Canis lupus baileyi, the Mexican wolf. The middle wave of evolved wolves returning to this continent from Asia are the gray wolves we have here now, and the most recent are the largest, the arctic wolves.
MP: Were the wolves introduced into YNP significantly different physically or behaviorally from the wolves that were here?
DS: The short answer is no. Wolves are ecological generalists. They can live on a variety of things. We looked for wolves that were previously exposed to bison and elk. The Canadian wolves had a small percentage of bison hair in their scat, but primarily elk and deer hair. We thought that was ideal, as that is the same diet—primarily elk and deer—as we have here. The available wolves from Minnesota had no experience with mountainous terrain or herds of elk or bison. We selected wolves from the same Rocky Mountain ecosystem, with the same kind of prey, to enhance the likelihood of the introduced wolves surviving. I want to clarify the misconception that larger Canadian wolves were preying on smaller American elk [thereby reducing the elk population inordinately]. In fact, the much smaller southwestern Mexican wolf brings down elk. The elk the Mexican wolves prey on in Arizona and New Mexico originally came from Yellowstone, as did the elk in Canada. The optimal number of adult wolves necessary to bring down an elk is only four, but a pair of wolves can also kill an elk.
MP: We hear reports that there were wolves already in Yellowstone that could have multiplied without reintroduction.
DS: There were no wolves here when we introduced the current wolves in 1995. There were no specially adapted wolves [as critics have claimed] in Yellowstone that did not run in packs, or use trails or roads, that didn't howl, and that preyed on small prey, unlike the wolves we have now. There has simply never been a wolf recorded anywhere that lives like that. Furthermore, there is no better bird dog for a wolf than a wolf itself. We had radio collars on all 41 wolves we released over a 3-year period. If there were extant wolves already on the landscape, they would have found them. The wolves we released never turned up any other wolves, dead or alive. And by the way, they rarely eat other wolves that they kill.
MP: Wolves killing other wolves is the main cause of wolf deaths in the park, correct?
DS: Yes, almost half of the 15 YNP wolves that died in 2012 were killed by other wolves. However, for wolves living outside the park, 80 percent of the wolf deaths are caused by humans, mostly by shooting them.
MP: How many wolves are in YNP now?
DS: Last year at the end of 2012 there were at least 83 wolves occupying YNP in 10 packs (6 breeding pairs). This is approximately a 15 percent decline from the previous three years when the numbers had stabilized at around 100 wolves. Wolf numbers have declined by about 50 percent since 2007, mostly because of a smaller elk population.
MP: Would the 1994 population of gray wolves that lived in Montana have naturally recovered, given the protection of the Endangered Species Act?
DS: That was a big opinion-based debate by wolf biologists at the time, led by Bob Ream of the University of Montana. In his opinion, wolves would have recovered given enough time—50, 60 or 70 years. Other people think they would not have made it. Yellowstone National Park and the five National Forests around it can be likened to a huge island. It's the most impressive wild land we have got in the lower 48, and some people say it's the most impressive temperate zone wild land in the world. But it's got an abrupt boundary to it. I frequently fly over here in an airplane, and at the boundary of a National Forest, it turns into a sea of humanity. And wolves are notoriously bad at getting through seas of humanity. Wolves get shot a lot. When we were dealing with a handful of wolves, maybe 40 to 60, how many of those would have been heading this way? So far, we have not yet documented a wolf coming from northwest Montana into Yellowstone. We have documented them coming from Idaho, but that's a lot closer and the linkages are better, primarily in the Centennial Mountains. Wolves don't do well over huge landscapes dominated by people. By introducing wolves they were legally not a fully protected species under the Endangered Species Act. People wanted to be able to shoot them when they got into livestock, which they could not have done if they were a fully protected species.
MP: Wolves from Idaho have now invaded the original Glacier National Park wolves, right?
DS: The Idaho wolf population is now fully connected to the northwest Montana wolf population. Interest-ingly, a study of historic wolf DNA from pelts and skulls shows that over 50 percent of wolf genetic diversity was lost when the continental United States population was reduced to a few hundred wolves in Minnesota. Wolves were the top carnivores in North America. Wolves evolved to adapt to the local conditions, and they will do so again.
MP: The tapeworm cysts spread by wolves that critics rail about, what risk to humans does this pose?
DS: The Echinococcus granulo sus tapeworm was already here. Wolves didn't bring it in. The coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs likely had it before wolves. The human health risk from tapeworms is almost nil. If anyone should have Echinococcus tapeworm it's me. I've handled over 500 wolves in my career. I take their temperature with a rectal thermometer. That's where the tapeworm eggs come out. I now wear rubber gloves, but I wash my hands in snow, then eat my lunch. I wouldn't worry much about it.
MP: What are the primary benefits and disadvantages of having wild ranging wolf packs in the Northern Rockies?
DS: The simplest way to answer that is that there is no question that wolves made people's lives more complicated, and that's a good reason not to have them. Some people love them, some people hate them, and wolves are a polarizing animal. People have to spend a lot of time dealing with the controversy that comes with wolves. Life is simpler without wolves. I admit that if you are a rancher, having wolves around is worrisome. I understand that it's not just the cows they kill; it's the sleepless nights. I think that's the best argument to not have them.
What's the ecological value of wolves? I don't know. It's a human dominated world. We control everything. So why do we need wolves? Landscapes look the way they do because of agriculture, forestry, hunting, mining, development—all those things trump things like wolves. So you really don't get huge ecological benefits of wolves outside of National Parks. In National Parks you do. So why have wolves on these huge landscapes where there are people? Good question. The best answer is, because people want them there. You know, there are a lot of people that don't like wolves. There is an equally large number that do like them, because living in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is unique and different than living in places like Illinois, Iowa and Arkansas. You have grizzly bears, you have wolves, you have cougars. And that brings in a lot of tourism dollars. Wolves and grizzly bears are the two top attractions to Yellowstone. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are perceived as being pristine, just because of the mere existence of the three large, toothy carnivores. It makes visiting or living here more valuable and a better experience. Economics are more important than ecology when it comes to carnivore populations in Yellowstone National Park.
Right now, it's as natural as it's ever been in Yellowstone Park. Now we have more predators than we have ever had, which means we have fewer elk, and fewer elk means we have all these other ecological benefits, like beavers and songbirds and fishes, and generally enhanced riparian habitat, because fewer elk means less browsing of riparian habitat. So it's a more balanced ecosystem. We only get that because we have natural densities of carnivores. As soon as you cross the park line, all the densities of those carnivores go down because humans manage them. And that is fine; it's not a criticism. The carnivores are on the landscape. That's the thing that the tourists like, but they are not at their normal densities that would occur if people didn't manage them.
MP: What about surplus killing by wolves [where, for example, ranchers report wolves killing or maiming a dozen sheep in one night]?
DS: Surplus killing by wolves doesn't really exist, per-se. We have watched wolves when they have killed more meat than they can immediately consume, and they always come back to finish the carcass unless they are spooked off by people. Hunting success rates for wolves are in the 5 percent to 15 percent range with elk. So they actually get about one in ten of the elk they go after. Eighty five percent to 95 percent of the time, the elk wins, and the wolves get nothing to eat. So, from an evolutionary perspective, if the wolves are not highly motivated to kill whenever they can, they will lose out. Of the 500 wolves I have handled, all across America, in the Midwest, Canada, Alaska, Yellowstone and Idaho, most of them are skinny beneath their beautiful fur. When I have felt their backbones and their pelvises, they usually are skinny. They are just getting by. The prey is better at getting away than the wolves are at killing the prey. So it is so hard to get dinner and when they do get a chance to kill, they kill. That's how you get so-called surplus killing, when the elk are weak and in deep snow, wolves will kill more than they can eat. Also, defenseless sheep will be killed in large numbers because the wolves can do so. But I would argue that if the rancher didn't come out the next day with a rifle, the wolves would eat all those sheep, even if it took them weeks to do so.
Wolves don't kill for the fun of it, when they are likely to get their head bashed in getting dinner. We have seen 15 or more wolves that have been killed by elk, bison, deer and moose. Wolves are risk averse. They don't want to try to kill something that's going to get their head bashed in or their stomach kicked in, but when it's easy, they will kill more than they can immediately eat, but those circumstances crop up pretty rarely. The wolves always cycle back to finish the carcass.
MP: What is the effect of wolves on the coyote population?
DS: Wolves kill coyotes when they approach wolf kills. Pre wolf-introduction, coyotes were living in packs in YNP, and that's something that's unusual. When there are wolves around, the coyotes pretty much live in pairs. Coyotes love coming in and stealing from wolves, and that got them killed. According to unpublished research, supposedly the coyote population dropped in half after the wolf introduction. Over 90 percent of the coyotes that are documented as being killed by wolves have been killed at wolf kill sites—they over estimated the wolves being meat drunk. So the coyotes quit running in packs, and went back to living in pairs, and became more wary around carcasses. The coyotes supposedly socially adapted to wolves, and their population went back to pre-wolf levels. This research is incomplete and inconclusive, but fascinating.
MP: Thank you, Doug. We appreciate this opportunity to present knowledge you have gained over the years about wolves, and at the same time address some of the contro-versies.
DS: Wolves are troublesome and controversial. I understand that. A lot of people don't like them, but a lot of people do like them, and they make money for a lot of people. What I am really after is to get as good a quality of information out there as possible, to help the debate to be a little bit better. The extreme anti-wolf person and the extreme pro-wolf person are always going to be problematic; they are never going to be happy. But this big group of people in the middle can come together on more than they think. If we can get an established group of facts about wolves correctly understood, I do think we can make progress in treating wolves just like any other animal, like a cougar, like a bear, like an elk. Sometimes and in some places their numbers need to be cut back, and just like any other form of wildlife, they need to be scientifically managed.
Interview conducted by Quincy Orhai for the Montana Pioneer.
Post by: WSU on January 07, 2014, 04:34:47 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 07, 2014, 04:37:57 PM
Quote
So, from an evolutionary perspective, if the wolves are not highly motivated to kill whenever they can, they will lose out.
He doesn't gloss over the fact that wolves and domestic livestock do not mix. Nothing in my opinion has changed, I agree with pretty much all of it.
I'll go back and read it again, and maybe come up with a few more points.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2014, 05:11:50 PM
Thanks for posting that, it's a pretty well balanced piece.:yeah: :yike: :chuckle:
Post by: villageidiot on January 07, 2014, 05:30:25 PM
Some ideas that would make the rancher support the wolves
!. every trail camera picture he can get that he can prove was on his place pay him 50 bucks because he's providing habitat
2.every animal that has wolf teeth marks on it pay him 500 bucks
3. every animal that is killed by wolves give him 2,000 bucks
4.every wolf track he can take a picture of a week from the last track he took one of he gets 10 bucks because he's providing habitat.
5. every picture he can get with a non-trail camera give him another 100 bucks
If these things are done he will invite the wolves onto his place. This money needs to come right out the taxpayers pot plain and simple. If they want wolves let them pay equally for the habitat the rancher is providing instead of just him alone.
Post by: pd on January 07, 2014, 06:34:11 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 05:25:16 AM
1. Smith does not account for the loss of moose in wolf impacted areas.
2. Smith does not account for the fact that ID & MT F&G agencies have both documented tremendous impacts to certain elk herds by wolves.
3. Dr. David Mech considered by many to be the world's foremost authority on wolves has written about how wolves do surplus kill.
4. Smith says wolves would eat surplus killed animals over coming weeks, not true because other scavengers would clean them up.
5. Several Canadian and Alaskan biologists and agencies have written about how intensive wolf management was needed to help local game herds.
6. E. Granulosus was present in rare instances, but wolves spread it widely, Dr Foreyt at WSU documented 66%-67% infection in ID and MT wolves.
7. Smith does not mention that wolves from farther north regions tend to hunt in larger more efficient packs.
8. Smith says they make money for a lot of people, he does not say what the ratio is compared to the amount of people losing money and/or being driven out of business by wolves.
9. Smith mentions nothing about the millions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted by numerous agencies on wolves.
10. Smith mentions nothing about the tremendous shortfall in hunting license sales F&G agencies have suffered.
This article seems to be nothing but another attempt by a known wolf lover to rationalize the real impacts of wolves.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 05:40:53 AM
That is actually very tainted as Smith is a known wolf lover and promoter and is spreading his pro-wolf opinioned propaganda to support the pro-wolf cause much in the same way certain wolf lovers try to do on this forum. Many of his comments and points have been refuted by qualified professionals. I quickly see several specific points that are either incorrect or overlooked by Smith.
1. Smith does not account for the loss of moose in wolf impacted areas.
2. Smith does not account for the fact that ID & MT F&G agencies have both documented tremendous impacts to certain elk herds by wolves.
3. Dr. David Mech considered by many to be the world's foremost authority on wolves has written about how wolves do surplus kill.
4. Several Canadian and Alaskan biologists and agencies have written about how intensive wolf management was needed to help local game herds.
5. E. Granulosus was present in rare instances, but wolves spread it widely, Dr Foreyt at WSU documented 66%-67% infection in ID and MT wolves.
6. Smith does not mention that wolves from farther north regions tend to hunt in larger more efficient packs.
7. Smith says they make money for a lot of people, he does not say what the ratio is compared to the amount of people losing money and/or being driven out of business by wolves.
This guy's in charge of the wolf project in Yellowstone. What's he going to say? "Yeah, well we really screwed up on this one. We had no idea how big they were and how much they eat. As a matter of fact, the whole thing's gotten really out of control and I'm responsible." Sorry JLS, but this is more government BS to hide the fact that the wolves have been shoved down our throats and no one will admit we're in for an even rougher ride than we already have.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 06:28:56 AM
That is actually very tainted as Smith is a known wolf lover and promoter and is spreading his pro-wolf opinioned propaganda to support the pro-wolf cause much in the same way certain wolf lovers try to do on this forum. Many of his comments and points have been refuted by qualified professionals. I quickly see several specific points that are either incorrect or overlooked by Smith.
1. Smith does not account for the loss of moose in wolf impacted areas.
2. Smith does not account for the fact that ID & MT F&G agencies have both documented tremendous impacts to certain elk herds by wolves.
3. Dr. David Mech considered by many to be the world's foremost authority on wolves has written about how wolves do surplus kill.
4. Several Canadian and Alaskan biologists and agencies have written about how intensive wolf management was needed to help local game herds.
5. E. Granulosus was present in rare instances, but wolves spread it widely, Dr Foreyt at WSU documented 66%-67% infection in ID and MT wolves.
6. Smith does not mention that wolves from farther north regions tend to hunt in larger more efficient packs.
7. Smith says they make money for a lot of people, he does not say what the ratio is compared to the amount of people losing money and/or being driven out of business by wolves.
This guy's in charge of the wolf project in Yellowstone. What's he going to say? "Yeah, well we really screwed up on this one. We had no idea how big they were and how much they eat. As a matter of fact, the whole thing's gotten really out of control and I'm responsible." Sorry JLS, but this is more government BS to hide the fact that the wolves have been shoved down our throats and no one will admit we're in for an even rougher ride than we already have.
Actually YNP is ground zero for ranchers learning different ways to stop wolves.Here's a short link for some insightful reading
http://www.westernwolves.org/index.php/ranching-in-wolf-country (http://www.westernwolves.org/index.php/ranching-in-wolf-country)
Than again your going to call this a :tree1: do to the fact that it's NEW tech out there to help ranchers and wolves get along.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 06:36:37 AM
That is actually very tainted as Smith is a known wolf lover and promoter and is spreading his pro-wolf opinioned propaganda to support the pro-wolf cause much in the same way certain wolf lovers try to do on this forum. Many of his comments and points have been refuted by qualified professionals. I quickly see several specific points that are either incorrect or overlooked by Smith.
1. Smith does not account for the loss of moose in wolf impacted areas.
2. Smith does not account for the fact that ID & MT F&G agencies have both documented tremendous impacts to certain elk herds by wolves.
3. Dr. David Mech considered by many to be the world's foremost authority on wolves has written about how wolves do surplus kill.
4. Several Canadian and Alaskan biologists and agencies have written about how intensive wolf management was needed to help local game herds.
5. E. Granulosus was present in rare instances, but wolves spread it widely, Dr Foreyt at WSU documented 66%-67% infection in ID and MT wolves.
6. Smith does not mention that wolves from farther north regions tend to hunt in larger more efficient packs.
7. Smith says they make money for a lot of people, he does not say what the ratio is compared to the amount of people losing money and/or being driven out of business by wolves.
This guy's in charge of the wolf project in Yellowstone. What's he going to say? "Yeah, well we really screwed up on this one. We had no idea how big they were and how much they eat. As a matter of fact, the whole thing's gotten really out of control and I'm responsible." Sorry JLS, but this is more government BS to hide the fact that the wolves have been shoved down our throats and no one will admit we're in for an even rougher ride than we already have.
Actually YNP is ground zero for ranchers learning different ways to stop wolves.Here's a short link for some insightful reading
http://www.westernwolves.org/index.php/ranching-in-wolf-country (http://www.westernwolves.org/index.php/ranching-in-wolf-country)
Than again your going to call this a :tree1: do to the fact that it's NEW tech out there to help ranchers and wolves get along.
Or, we're going to call it a pro-wolf fluff piece because of who the group is who wrote it. This is who they are from their own website. Are you a member of these guys?
"The Western Wolf Coalition
Established in 2008, the Western Wolf Coalition is a source of networking for wildlife organizations across the northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest. Representing more than 20 local, state, regional and national organizations, the coalition is building a grassroots activist network to engage our collective supporters and members in state wildlife actions that impact wolves in the region. We have also recruited new activists through events and activist training workshops throughout the region. As a result, wolf conservation supporters are attending and speaking at hearings, writing letters to officials, and through newspapers and social media in growing numbers and with a clear focus on important and effective messages to help counter anti-wolf misinformation campaigns. "
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 06:44:28 AM
These measures are not affordable to most cattle operations especially those utilizing public lands for grazing.
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 06:57:55 AM
I didn't see any new tech, everyone knows the wolf groups think flags, ribbons, and rubber bullets will discourage wolves from eating beef and lamb, but that has been proven to not work in NE Oregon, they had to kill wolves that paid little attention to flagging and ate cattle anyway. There is some merit in the range rider program, but ranchers can't afford that. I know a NE WA rancher personally who has a range rider that the state and wolf groups are financing and I do think it has prevented cattle losses. Are taxpayers ready to pony up range riders for all the cattle operations throughout the west.Not just those methods,The collar tracker ,screamer,and grizzly urine ? mainly the collar tracker tolet ranchers know if any wolves are near by to me is a great tool used to help cattleman and ranchers
These measures are not affordable to most cattle operations especially those utilizing public lands for grazing.
I got to see it in action at my close family friends ranch in BIG Timber MT last summer and there operation isn't what you wou;d call small earthier. ;)
Post by: jackmaster on January 17, 2014, 07:04:15 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 07:20:55 AM
That is actually very tainted as Smith is a known wolf lover and promoter and is spreading his pro-wolf opinioned propaganda to support the pro-wolf cause much in the same way certain wolf lovers try to do on this forum. Many of his comments and points have been refuted by qualified professionals. I quickly see several specific points that are either incorrect or overlooked by Smith.
1. Smith does not account for the loss of moose in wolf impacted areas.
2. Smith does not account for the fact that ID & MT F&G agencies have both documented tremendous impacts to certain elk herds by wolves.
3. Dr. David Mech considered by many to be the world's foremost authority on wolves has written about how wolves do surplus kill.
4. Several Canadian and Alaskan biologists and agencies have written about how intensive wolf management was needed to help local game herds.
5. E. Granulosus was present in rare instances, but wolves spread it widely, Dr Foreyt at WSU documented 66%-67% infection in ID and MT wolves.
6. Smith does not mention that wolves from farther north regions tend to hunt in larger more efficient packs.
7. Smith says they make money for a lot of people, he does not say what the ratio is compared to the amount of people losing money and/or being driven out of business by wolves.
This guy's in charge of the wolf project in Yellowstone. What's he going to say? "Yeah, well we really screwed up on this one. We had no idea how big they were and how much they eat. As a matter of fact, the whole thing's gotten really out of control and I'm responsible." Sorry JLS, but this is more government BS to hide the fact that the wolves have been shoved down our throats and no one will admit we're in for an even rougher ride than we already have.
Actually YNP is ground zero for ranchers learning different ways to stop wolves.Here's a short link for some insightful reading
http://www.westernwolves.org/index.php/ranching-in-wolf-country (http://www.westernwolves.org/index.php/ranching-in-wolf-country)
Than again your going to call this a :tree1: do to the fact that it's NEW tech out there to help ranchers and wolves get along.
Or, we're going to call it a pro-wolf fluff piece because of who the group is who wrote it. This is who they are from their own website. Are you a member of these guys?
"The Western Wolf Coalition
Established in 2008, the Western Wolf Coalition is a source of networking for wildlife organizations across the northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest. Representing more than 20 local, state, regional and national organizations, the coalition is building a grassroots activist network to engage our collective supporters and members in state wildlife actions that impact wolves in the region. We have also recruited new activists through events and activist training workshops throughout the region. As a result, wolf conservation supporters are attending and speaking at hearings, writing letters to officials, and through newspapers and social media in growing numbers and with a clear focus on important and effective messages to help counter anti-wolf misinformation campaigns. "
They need to add:
Wolf supporters are infiltrating, schools and universities, hunting groups, government agencies, and F&G Departments to further our cause.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 17, 2014, 07:27:13 AM
I didn't see any new tech, everyone knows the wolf groups think flags, ribbons, and rubber bullets will discourage wolves from eating beef and lamb, but that has been proven to not work in NE Oregon, they had to kill wolves that paid little attention to flagging and ate cattle anyway. There is some merit in the range rider program, but ranchers can't afford that. I know a NE WA rancher personally who has a range rider that the state and wolf groups are financing and I do think it has prevented cattle losses. Are taxpayers ready to pony up range riders for all the cattle operations throughout the west.
These measures are not affordable to most cattle operations especially those utilizing public lands for grazing.
You forgot a very important wolf deterrent, Dale. "Shoo wolf, shoo." According to the aforementioned
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 08:01:31 AM
Post by: jackmaster on January 17, 2014, 10:12:08 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 17, 2014, 10:21:52 AM
here is a dumb question! WHAT IS A RANGE RIDER? is it someone who gets paid to ride around on a horse and protect cattle and sheep ranches from wolves? if it is, how do i get a job doing that? holy snaught bubbles, what a job that would be.... :tup: that would probably be an even better job for RTSPRING :chuckle:
Yes, to put it simply, you check the cattle daily and through your presence you discourage wolves from eating them.
Post by: KFhunter on January 17, 2014, 10:24:08 AM
here is a dumb question! WHAT IS A RANGE RIDER? is it someone who gets paid to ride around on a horse and protect cattle and sheep ranches from wolves? if it is, how do i get a job doing that? holy snaught bubbles, what a job that would be.... :tup: that would probably be an even better job for RTSPRING :chuckle:
Yes, to put it simply, you check the cattle daily and through your presence you discourage wolves from eating them.
Theoretically Dale, theoretically.
Post by: jackmaster on January 17, 2014, 10:25:15 AM
what does a job like that pay and how does one go about getting a job protecting those poor defenseless wolves :rolleyes: :chuckle: :bfg: :mgun: :mgun2: :whoo: :whoo:here is a dumb question! WHAT IS A RANGE RIDER? is it someone who gets paid to ride around on a horse and protect cattle and sheep ranches from wolves? if it is, how do i get a job doing that? holy snaught bubbles, what a job that would be.... :tup: that would probably be an even better job for RTSPRING :chuckle:
Yes, to put it simply, you check the cattle daily and through your presence you discourage wolves from eating them.
Post by: Special T on January 17, 2014, 10:42:46 AM
How can he say that ALL wolves are the same? Skull size has NOTHING to do with how they act. Here is some evidence from his OWN WORDS
MP: What were the main characteristics that were different between the wolves from Canada and the wolves that pre-existed here in Yellowstone, say 150 years ago? Is that known?
DS:Wolves are stopped by nothing. They will cross mountain ranges, rivers, even pack ice. That's how good this animal is at moving around. So what we have is this constant intermixing of genes that prevents them from becoming really different subspecies
MP: Were the wolves introduced into YNP significantly different physically or behaviorally from the wolves that were here?
DS: The short answer is no. Wolves are ecological generalists.... .....In fact, the much smaller southwestern Mexican wolf brings down elk. The elk the Mexican wolves prey on in Arizona and New Mexico originally came from Yellowstone, as did the elk in Canada. The optimal number of adult wolves necessary to bring down an elk is only four, but a pair of wolves can also kill an elk.
MP: Would the 1994 population of gray wolves that lived in Montana have naturally recovered, given the protection of the Endangered Species Act?
DS: That was a big opinion-based debate by wolf biologists at the time, led by Bob Ream of the University of Montana. In his opinion, wolves would have recovered given enough time—50, 60 or 70 years.... .... We have documented them coming from Idaho, but that's a lot closer and the linkages are better, primarily in the Centennial Mountains. Wolves don't do well over huge landscapes dominated by people. By introducing wolves they were legally not a fully protected species under the Endangered Species Act. People wanted to be able to shoot them when they got into livestock, which they could not have done if they were a fully protected species.
So given his statements How have wolf populations exploded in 20 years if it was debated that it would take 50-70 years for the MT wolves to?
He states that the "Mexican" grey wolves come from YNP, and the YNP wolves come from BC, Canada & MT... How the :bash: can they be a Mexican sub species when HE states there is NO real difference and they COME from those 3 different places?
WHY would you bring in wolves since some were already here? He states that wolves cannot be stopped by ANTHING yet they cannot move through landscape with people. Funny the Rocky Mountains HAD lots of prey and there is very few people in a large continuous swaths of land.
IMO there is plenty of other evidence that this guy is wrong, however if you use ANY common sense questioning HIS words they don't add up.
Post by: buckfvr on January 17, 2014, 12:18:13 PM
Post by: jon.brown509 on January 17, 2014, 03:10:22 PM
and wants to know how to fix what the hell is happening to the northwest with the return of the Apex predator.
Post by: jackmaster on January 17, 2014, 03:15:57 PM
:o Nope not a member of that i'm just a pecker wood that lives in the hill's and owns too many guns :guns: :hunter:if you want to know how to fix it, its pretty simple to figure out, learn from those who came before us, use what has happened in other states as a model, use common sense, if you boil all of this down in a pot, you will be left with is a big bowl of stop the wolves before its to late soup :tup: :tup: :chuckle:
and wants to know how to fix what the hell is happening to the northwest with the return of the Apex predator.
Post by: JLS on January 17, 2014, 04:26:53 PM
I'm sorry but i can't take this guy seriously. His own words contradict themselves.
How can he say that ALL wolves are the same? Skull size has NOTHING to do with how they act. Here is some evidence from his OWN WORDS
MP: What were the main characteristics that were different between the wolves from Canada and the wolves that pre-existed here in Yellowstone, say 150 years ago? Is that known?
DS:Wolves are stopped by nothing. They will cross mountain ranges, rivers, even pack ice. That's how good this animal is at moving around. So what we have is this constant intermixing of genes that prevents them from becoming really different subspecies
MP: Were the wolves introduced into YNP significantly different physically or behaviorally from the wolves that were here?
DS: The short answer is no. Wolves are ecological generalists.... .....In fact, the much smaller southwestern Mexican wolf brings down elk. The elk the Mexican wolves prey on in Arizona and New Mexico originally came from Yellowstone, as did the elk in Canada. The optimal number of adult wolves necessary to bring down an elk is only four, but a pair of wolves can also kill an elk.
MP: Would the 1994 population of gray wolves that lived in Montana have naturally recovered, given the protection of the Endangered Species Act?
DS: That was a big opinion-based debate by wolf biologists at the time, led by Bob Ream of the University of Montana. In his opinion, wolves would have recovered given enough time—50, 60 or 70 years.... .... We have documented them coming from Idaho, but that's a lot closer and the linkages are better, primarily in the Centennial Mountains. Wolves don't do well over huge landscapes dominated by people. By introducing wolves they were legally not a fully protected species under the Endangered Species Act. People wanted to be able to shoot them when they got into livestock, which they could not have done if they were a fully protected species.
So given his statements How have wolf populations exploded in 20 years if it was debated that it would take 50-70 years for the MT wolves to?
He states that the "Mexican" grey wolves come from YNP, and the YNP wolves come from BC, Canada & MT... How the :bash: can they be a Mexican sub species when HE states there is NO real difference and they COME from those 3 different places?
WHY would you bring in wolves since some were already here? He states that wolves cannot be stopped by ANTHING yet they cannot move through landscape with people. Funny the Rocky Mountains HAD lots of prey and there is very few people in a large continuous swaths of land.
IMO there is plenty of other evidence that this guy is wrong, however if you use ANY common sense questioning HIS words they don't add up.
He said the elk the Mexican wolves kill came from YNP, not the Mexican wolves.
Post by: Special T on January 17, 2014, 04:34:49 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 18, 2014, 10:22:07 AM
If you state that all wolves are the same and it doesn't matter if they came from BC mckensy valley or MT then how can you use that some line of reasoning to say there are MEXICAN wolves?
This is one of the problems with the whole introduction fiasco. The USFWS has classified wolves to suit their needs for reintroduction. I'm pretty sure there were over 20 subspecies of wolves, but to avoid problems introducing Canadian wolves they reclassified numerous subspecies as gray wolves. However, to facilitate putting pen raised hybrid wolves in New Mexico, they chose to call them gray wolves. :rolleyes:
certainly a double standard that reeks of corruption :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on January 18, 2014, 10:29:01 AM
Wish I could find that article that discusses the dispersing wolf/s heading to the panhandle of AK and far eastern side of BC, they were worried the bigger more aggressive wolf from here would taint the DNA of the smaller subspecies there.
Post by: JLS on January 18, 2014, 02:44:20 PM
Post by: Special T on January 19, 2014, 08:18:33 AM
It does not cut and paste but the summary states that wolves ARE different because they Tend to live in areas similar to where they were raised. That is supported by thier DNA analysis....
So what this means is that you can't have it both ways. EITHER you can have "GREY WOLVES" OR "MEXICAN WOLVES"
IF we had indigenous wolves there would NOT be an explosion in numbers. This explosion is NOT logical. The only way to explain this explosion is to have an animal that was NOT part of the ecosystem.
Post by: JLS on January 19, 2014, 08:27:44 AM
IF we had indigenous wolves there would NOT be an explosion in numbers. This explosion is NOT logical. The only way to explain this explosion is to have an animal that was NOT part of the ecosystem.
Pure nonsense. They were put into areas where there was outstanding wolf habitat, with no barriers to expansion and/or colonization.
Are you telling me that coyotes would not have responded in the same way?
Post by: Bob33 on January 19, 2014, 09:13:30 AM
Wolves essentially were ushered into a Golden Corral smorgasbord.
I can't understand why anyone would be surprised at their explosive growth.
Post by: KFhunter on January 19, 2014, 11:24:04 AM
Post by: Special T on January 19, 2014, 07:52:09 PM
IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out... Unfortunately WA won't figure it out until the WDFW depends upon is funding from fish and predator hunting.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 19, 2014, 09:58:19 PM
IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 08:20:14 AM
Since the states were the "Golden Corral" and wolves "cannot be stopped by rivers or mountain ranges", WHY did they think it would take 50-70 years to repopulate, and since it HAS been documented that there WERE wolves in Washington since at least the 90's(by the WDFW own records) and in MT (since that is where they trans located at least some of them) YET the population explosion took place AFTER the trans location of wolves in YNP and ID, and in ID it was from Canada.
IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out... Unfortunately WA won't figure it out until the WDFW depends upon is funding from fish and predator hunting.
DS: That was a big opinion-based debate by wolf biologists at the time, led by Bob Ream of the University of Montana. In his opinion, wolves would have recovered given enough time—50, 60 or 70 years. Other people think they would not have made it. Yellowstone National Park and the five National Forests around it can be likened to a huge island. It's the most impressive wild land we have got in the lower 48, and some people say it's the most impressive temperate zone wild land in the world. But it's got an abrupt boundary to it. I frequently fly over here in an airplane, and at the boundary of a National Forest, it turns into a sea of humanity. And wolves are notoriously bad at getting through seas of humanity. Wolves get shot a lot. When we were dealing with a handful of wolves, maybe 40 to 60, how many of those would have been heading this way? So far, we have not yet documented a wolf coming from northwest Montana into Yellowstone. We have documented them coming from Idaho, but that's a lot closer and the linkages are better, primarily in the Centennial Mountains. Wolves don't do well over huge landscapes dominated by people. By introducing wolves they were legally not a fully protected species under the Endangered Species Act. People wanted to be able to shoot them when they got into livestock, which they could not have done if they were a fully protected species.
I bolded what I think are some very key points to your questions. Yes, wolves can travel an extraordinary distance. However, there is a big difference between wolves traveling a long distance and colonizing, versus just traveling. Obviously there are barriers there that don't seem like they should be significant, but they are.
There are valleys I hunt in Montana that still don't have any significant numbers of wolves, and they are not that far geographically from YNP. Why that is, I couldn't answer. Maybe too much ranchland in between that leads them to trouble and prevents a dispersal? Probably.
If you were to look at aerials of GNP to NE WA, and then compare them to aerials of GNP to YNP, you would see a marked difference in habitat and nature of the ecosystem. I am not a wolf expert, but I would speculate that the ideal types of wolf habitat are those found in North Idaho, NW Montana, and NE Washington and it is very easy for wolves to expand and colonize new areas in this type of habitat. When you begin dealing with island mountain ranges they are much more limited.
If anything, I think the rapid expansion shows that the wolves that were reintroduced were put into a very similar habitat relative to what they were accustomed to. If they weren't , wouldn't it stand to reason that they would have had a much more difficult time adapting and expanding?
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 09:09:50 AM
It defies basic logic that wolves are coming from YNP/ID instead of BC. The distance is closer to BC and there is more "continuous" corridors for them to travel/hunt.
As part of my argument i would say the the wolves protected by closing they coyote hunting in the Pasyaden during the 90's was proof of indigenous cascade wolves migrating south.... Despite the presence of those wolves we are asked to believe that those wolves in the middle of some of the best mule deer territory are some how the same kind as the ones spreading from ID and YNP... If anything the wolves in NCWA should have spread and dispersed from there since there were already known wolf packs there. WHY did wolves not explode from the NC cascades? They were in remote areas, plenty of food didn't have to cross any "heavily populated" areas???
How is it that an ISALND of wolves in a park can explode in population VS the connected Wolves in NC WA with a large prey base?
There is ONLY one logical conclusion... The wolves brought into ID/YNP were not the same sub species and/or did not have the same kind of living characteristics that the native ones in the NC WA had. THAT is in direct opposition to what the Bio stated.
The hypothesis used by this bio does not work, and it cannot because it does NOT work with the wolves that have been PROVEN to be here BEFORE the "Recovery".
Post by: KFhunter on January 20, 2014, 09:26:16 AM
http://www.mcsoccp.org/joomla/ (http://www.mcsoccp.org/joomla/)
:chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on January 20, 2014, 09:34:46 AM
It's documented in other instances all throughout the United States so to think it did not happen here is stretching it.
From transplanting Red Wolves in the Carolina's to Mexican wolves down south, it's verified, admitted too, and easy to google. The Red's were unsuccessful in establishing themselves, but they're raising more in pens to try again later as I type this.
Why then are folks so adamant that Gray's weren't transplanted in the PNW? It's illogical when it's proven to have happened elsewhere.
but I digress, it doesn't matter now they're here so we need to ramp up public pressure to get them fully de-listed and on the hunting regs with very liberal seasons and bag limits.
Even then it won't cull the population or save the Elk, but if they're hunted they'll avoid people and industry (cattle) and that is a start.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 09:49:36 AM
What stopped the wolves in BC from moving south? What prevented wolves from MT to disperse? There are NO large population centers from Central BC to washington state. If you look at a map there are LARGE areas in the Rockies that are not inhabited by anyone, or very loosely populated.
The areas in the Rockies that are very loosely populated often have large ranches in them. Wolves + ranches = trouble, which under the EXPERIMENTAL listing allowed for those problem wolves to be shot.
It defies basic logic that wolves are coming from YNP/ID instead of BC. The distance is closer to BC and there is more "continuous" corridors for them to travel/hunt.
Who said the wolves came from YNP? It is an easy migration from the Frank up through the Selway to north ID and then into WA. I'm sure some are coming from southern BC too. I guess I'm confused as to your argument?
As part of my argument i would say the the wolves protected by closing they coyote hunting in the Pasyaden during the 90's was proof of indigenous cascade wolves migrating south.... Despite the presence of those wolves we are asked to believe that those wolves in the middle of some of the best mule deer territory are some how the same kind as the ones spreading from ID and YNP... If anything the wolves in NCWA should have spread and dispersed from there since there were already known wolf packs there. WHY did wolves not explode from the NC cascades? They were in remote areas, plenty of food didn't have to cross any "heavily populated" areas???
How is it that an ISALND of wolves in a park can explode in population VS the connected Wolves in NC WA with a large prey base?
Because the island of wolves is surrounded by a huge wilderness with a lot of elk, no ranches, and very few roads. If you look at the expansion pattern out of YNP, you'll see that some areas definitely favored wolf movement over others. There are several mountain ranges in Montana that have a lot of elk and no wolves. Sometimes the why is not always easily explainable.
The Frank Church is another example of a large wilderness, no roads, no ranches, and a large prey base. It's much easier to find a safe route for expansion when there is 360 degrees worth, verus one or two river corridors.
There is ONLY one logical conclusion... The wolves brought into ID/YNP were not the same sub species and/or did not have the same kind of living characteristics that the native ones in the NC WA had. THAT is in direct opposition to what the Bio stated.
I still have no idea how you are drawing this single conclusion, I'll agree to disagree. It seems completely illogical to me. As I stated, these wolves were obviously very similar in living characteristics as they didn't miss a beat because they didn't have to relearn and adapt to completely different environment.
The hypothesis used by this bio does not work, and it cannot because it does NOT work with the wolves that have been PROVEN to be here BEFORE the "Recovery".
So it was speculated that it would take 50-70 years for this expansion to happen without translocation. I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that it could be reduced to 1/2 to 1/3 with translocation. I don't see how any hypothesis was disproved at all. Again, agree to disagree.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 20, 2014, 09:52:16 AM
but I digress, it doesn't matter now they're here so we need to ramp up public pressure to get them fully de-listed and on the hunting regs with very liberal seasons and bag limits.:yeah:
Even then it won't cull the population or save the Elk, but if they're hunted they'll avoid people and industry (cattle) and that is a start.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 09:54:49 AM
IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.
I think WY had it figured out because they have LESS wolves in the state than ID or MT AND they are confined to a smaller portion of the state because they are shot like coyotes in the rest of the state. WY did not subjegate itself to the Feds like ID and MT did. YES they have to "pay" for thier management, but i thin the feds $ is a poisen pill.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 09:59:02 AM
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 10:00:48 AM
IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.
I think WY had it figured out because they have LESS wolves in the state than ID or MT AND they are confined to a smaller portion of the state because they are shot like coyotes in the rest of the state. WY did not subjegate itself to the Feds like ID and MT did. YES they have to "pay" for thier management, but i thin the feds $ is a poisen pill.
I would say the primary reason they have fewer wolves is the nature of Wyoming's habitat versus that of Idaho and Montana. It simply is apples to oranges to try and compare the two when you look at Wyoming's vast expanses of rangeland that separate the mountain ranges. If you look at similar parts of Montana you will also find fewer wolves than in other parts of the state. Same with Idaho, I don't hear much about wolves in the Owhyee Country and probably never will to any great extent.
Montana could make it a shoot on sight area in eastern 1/2 of the state, but there is no need to. They'll either get shot by licensed hunters or shot when they are near livestock. It's purely semantics.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 10:03:56 AM
By now, you're correct JLS; it doesn't matter from where they're coming. The smaller indigenous wolves are dead and the larger Canadian wolves are free to roam either from ID, MT and YNP, or come down from Canada, as you pointed out. If we were really concerned with endangered species, we should be killing all of the larger ones to save the smaller ones but apparently the purpose of the ESA isn't to save endangered indigenous species after all. It's to forward radical environmental agendas. Who'd have thought that? Oh yeah, most of us.
The weights of all of the harvested wolves in the Rockies have been well within the range of what was documented in the past.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 10:08:15 AM
By now, you're correct JLS; it doesn't matter from where they're coming. The smaller indigenous wolves are dead and the larger Canadian wolves are free to roam either from ID, MT and YNP, or come down from Canada, as you pointed out. If we were really concerned with endangered species, we should be killing all of the larger ones to save the smaller ones but apparently the purpose of the ESA isn't to save endangered indigenous species after all. It's to forward radical environmental agendas. Who'd have thought that? Oh yeah, most of us.
The weights of all of the harvested wolves in the Rockies have been well within the range of what was documented in the past.
I was actually talking about the wolves indigenous to WA. However, if you're saying the Canadian wolves that they dropped in YNP are no different from the wolves that were there before, I'd have to say that numerous sources with more biological bona fides than I vehemently disagree with you. Are you really saying that the Canadian grey wolf is the same size as the wolves that were here historically? You can't be.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 10:10:46 AM
"no ranches, and very few roads. If you look at the expansion pattern out of YNP, you'll see that some areas definitely favored wolf movement over others. There are several mountain ranges in Montana that have a lot of elk and no wolves. Sometimes the why is not always easily explainable."
Roads and Ranches did not stop wolves from moving from ID to NC WA despite their presence. IF the absence of Roads and Ranches WERE the key (Which i greatly dispute) then the wolf population from the Pasadena should have exploded.
"The areas in the Rockies that are very loosely populated often have large ranches in them. Wolves + ranches = trouble, which under the EXPERIMENTAL listing allowed for those problem wolves to be shot."
This is a straw man argument. If it were so easy for the wolves to be hunted, shot, and numbers controlled ID & MT would not be suffering the effects of so many wolves.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 10:31:36 AM
By now, you're correct JLS; it doesn't matter from where they're coming. The smaller indigenous wolves are dead and the larger Canadian wolves are free to roam either from ID, MT and YNP, or come down from Canada, as you pointed out. If we were really concerned with endangered species, we should be killing all of the larger ones to save the smaller ones but apparently the purpose of the ESA isn't to save endangered indigenous species after all. It's to forward radical environmental agendas. Who'd have thought that? Oh yeah, most of us.
The weights of all of the harvested wolves in the Rockies have been well within the range of what was documented in the past.
I was actually talking about the wolves indigenous to WA. However, if you're saying the Canadian wolves that they dropped in YNP are no different from the wolves that were there before, I'd have to say that numerous sources with more biological bona fides than I vehemently disagree with you. Are you really saying that the Canadian grey wolf is the same size as the wolves that were here historically? You can't be.
Well, MT FWP reports that the average adult male harvested weighed 91 pounds. Per Toby Bridges claims that the "original wolves" in the Rockies topped out at between 90 to 100 pounds, what argument is there to the claims that these are much larger wolves?
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 10:40:15 AM
ID imported wolves from the McKenzie valley just like the YNP. I did not say the came from YNP specifically just that they have come from the E not the N.
"no ranches, and very few roads. If you look at the expansion pattern out of YNP, you'll see that some areas definitely favored wolf movement over others. There are several mountain ranges in Montana that have a lot of elk and no wolves. Sometimes the why is not always easily explainable."
Roads and Ranches did not stop wolves from moving from ID to NC WA despite their presence. IF the absence of Roads and Ranches WERE the key (Which i greatly dispute) then the wolf population from the Pasadena should have exploded.
"The areas in the Rockies that are very loosely populated often have large ranches in them. Wolves + ranches = trouble, which under the EXPERIMENTAL listing allowed for those problem wolves to be shot."
This is a straw man argument. If it were so easy for the wolves to be hunted, shot, and numbers controlled ID & MT would not be suffering the effects of so many wolves.
Straw man right back at you. I already told you that there are mountain ranges in Montana that are only a couple hundred miles or ess from YNP that have a LOT of elk, that have no or very few wolves. Why? Who knows. Obviously the patterns and methods by which they disperse and colonize are not just A then B then C.
Sometimes it's a simple matter of livestock conflicts and the pack is removed. Other times, they don't get into trouble and you never hear from them.
I hunt in very close proximity to YNP. I did not see a wolf in 16 days in the field last year. Tell me there are so many wolves? We saw elk nearly every day, they bugled day and night, and they were not huddled in the Wal Mart parking lot.
http://www.sej.org/sites/default/files/AwardsWinners/june6wolves.pdf (http://www.sej.org/sites/default/files/AwardsWinners/june6wolves.pdf)
According to this, the wolves in the Methow came from BC, not YNP.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 10:45:15 AM
Plenty of argument. Just to cite an example, here's a picture out of the ID Observer of a wolf shot in ID said to be 180 lbs. http://proliberty.com/observer/20090623.htm (http://proliberty.com/observer/20090623.htm)By now, you're correct JLS; it doesn't matter from where they're coming. The smaller indigenous wolves are dead and the larger Canadian wolves are free to roam either from ID, MT and YNP, or come down from Canada, as you pointed out. If we were really concerned with endangered species, we should be killing all of the larger ones to save the smaller ones but apparently the purpose of the ESA isn't to save endangered indigenous species after all. It's to forward radical environmental agendas. Who'd have thought that? Oh yeah, most of us.
The weights of all of the harvested wolves in the Rockies have been well within the range of what was documented in the past.
I was actually talking about the wolves indigenous to WA. However, if you're saying the Canadian wolves that they dropped in YNP are no different from the wolves that were there before, I'd have to say that numerous sources with more biological bona fides than I vehemently disagree with you. Are you really saying that the Canadian grey wolf is the same size as the wolves that were here historically? You can't be.
Well, MT FWP reports that the average adult male harvested weighed 91 pounds. Per Toby Bridges claims that the "original wolves" in the Rockies topped out at between 90 to 100 pounds, what argument is there to the claims that these are much larger wolves?
This article from Canadian Geographic puts adult male greys at up to 70 kilos, or 154 lbs. http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/wildlife-nature/?path=english/species/grey-wolf. (http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/wildlife-nature/?path=english/species/grey-wolf.) Perhaps we've been very selective about getting only the smaller wolves out of Canada?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 10:51:04 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 10:54:32 AM
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 11:05:12 AM
Here is data from Idaho, funny how similar it is to Montana's.
https://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL0000348.pdf (https://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL0000348.pdf)
Here is information from Wyoming Game and Fish, they too state similar sizes.
The funny thing is, I don't hear anyone calling for the removal of the Blue Mountain elk herd, when it's been well known and publicized that they have Roosevelt genes within the herd, which were not indigenous to the Blues. Elk from YNP have been moved all over the U.S. Bighorn sheep from Canada and Wyoming have been moved all over.
It makes the arguement look pretty silly in my opinion, when hunters try to pick and choose and claim that one situation is entirely different than the other. Look at whitetailed deer. Their sizes vary drastically across the US, but they are still the same species. If you took a large Alberta whitetail and put it in Georgia, it probably wouldn't do well. Same with a Texas brush country whitetail going to Eastern Montana. However, if you took a Colorado alpine mule deer and put it in the North Cascades, I'm willing to bet they would do just fine. Same with a Kansas plains whitetail to the Palouse. Would the sizes be exactly the same? No, but the specificity to the habitat would be.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 11:14:52 AM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/)
Here is data from Idaho, funny how similar it is to Montana's.
https://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL0000348.pdf (https://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL0000348.pdf)
Here is information from Wyoming Game and Fish, they too state similar sizes.
The funny thing is, I don't hear anyone calling for the removal of the Blue Mountain elk herd, when it's been well known and publicized that they have Roosevelt genes within the herd, which were not indigenous to the Blues. Elk from YNP have been moved all over the U.S. Bighorn sheep from Canada and Wyoming have been moved all over.
It makes the arguement look pretty silly in my opinion, when hunters try to pick and choose and claim that one situation is entirely different than the other. Look at whitetailed deer. Their sizes vary drastically across the US, but they are still the same species. If you took a large Alberta whitetail and put it in Georgia, it probably wouldn't do well. Same with a Texas brush country whitetail going to Eastern Montana. However, if you took a Colorado alpine mule deer and put it in the North Cascades, I'm willing to bet they would do just fine. Same with a Kansas plains whitetail to the Palouse. Would the sizes be exactly the same? No, but the specificity to the habitat would be.
I don't pick and choose. They should all be removed. I'm not alone in that, either.
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 11:23:39 AM
Should we remove all transplanted elk, antelope, bighorns, mountain goats, turkeys, chukars, pheasants, etc?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 20, 2014, 11:28:18 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 11:54:54 AM
IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.
I think SpecialT has it right. Wyoming has by far the most reasonable wolf plan that puts the fewest wolves in their state. Washington has the worst plan. That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
but I digress, it doesn't matter now they're here so we need to ramp up public pressure to get them fully de-listed and on the hunting regs with very liberal seasons and bag limits.:yeah:
Even then it won't cull the population or save the Elk, but if they're hunted they'll avoid people and industry (cattle) and that is a start.
:yeah: At least most of us can probably agree on this!
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 12:05:14 PM
IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.
I think WY had it figured out because they have LESS wolves in the state than ID or MT AND they are confined to a smaller portion of the state because they are shot like coyotes in the rest of the state. WY did not subjegate itself to the Feds like ID and MT did. YES they have to "pay" for thier management, but i thin the feds $ is a poisen pill.
I would say the primary reason they have fewer wolves is the nature of Wyoming's habitat versus that of Idaho and Montana. It simply is apples to oranges to try and compare the two when you look at Wyoming's vast expanses of rangeland that separate the mountain ranges. If you look at similar parts of Montana you will also find fewer wolves than in other parts of the state. Same with Idaho, I don't hear much about wolves in the Owhyee Country and probably never will to any great extent.
Montana could make it a shoot on sight area in eastern 1/2 of the state, but there is no need to. They'll either get shot by licensed hunters or shot when they are near livestock. It's purely semantics.
Not exactly correct. In WY wolves can be shot on sight in 80% of the state. Their management plan is designed to keep wolves confined more to the park and nearby wilderness. A much different management philosophy than the other states. :twocents:
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 12:07:28 PM
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 12:10:55 PM
That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. :twocents:
I think this is kind of a condescending statement. If they want wolves how is that rolling over?
I certainly think they are misinformed, in that the majority of the public thinks that their tax dollars supports wildlife, not license sales and PR money.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 12:13:25 PM
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/)
Here is data from Idaho, funny how similar it is to Montana's.
https://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL0000348.pdf (https://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WOLF_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_FINAL0000348.pdf)
Here is information from Wyoming Game and Fish, they too state similar sizes.
The funny thing is, I don't hear anyone calling for the removal of the Blue Mountain elk herd, when it's been well known and publicized that they have Roosevelt genes within the herd, which were not indigenous to the Blues. Elk from YNP have been moved all over the U.S. Bighorn sheep from Canada and Wyoming have been moved all over.
It makes the arguement look pretty silly in my opinion, when hunters try to pick and choose and claim that one situation is entirely different than the other. Look at whitetailed deer. Their sizes vary drastically across the US, but they are still the same species. If you took a large Alberta whitetail and put it in Georgia, it probably wouldn't do well. Same with a Texas brush country whitetail going to Eastern Montana. However, if you took a Colorado alpine mule deer and put it in the North Cascades, I'm willing to bet they would do just fine. Same with a Kansas plains whitetail to the Palouse. Would the sizes be exactly the same? No, but the specificity to the habitat would be.
Actually that's the best rationalization I have seen. I'm not saying I agree, but it is a fair statement. I really think we need to get past worrying about which wolf or which elk is where since both have already multiplied and spread widely. At this point we need more aggressive management because wolves are multiplying, ungulates are being eaten, livestock is being eaten, and wolves are being trained that they have no reason to fear humans. The sooner we manage wolves, especially in the northeast, the sooner we will assure that our moose, elk, and deer herds don't disappear.
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 12:14:41 PM
That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. :twocents:
I think this is kind of a condescending statement. If they want wolves how is that rolling over?
I certainly think they are misinformed, in that the majority of the public thinks that their tax dollars supports wildlife, not license sales and PR money.
I think that was the quickest way to describe what has happened, wolf groups got their way because everyone else let them. :twocents:
Sure, I understand it's more complex than that, but essentially that's what we get when people think they can make these groups happy.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 12:20:51 PM
Special T, take a look at the map at the end of this document. The harvest locations mirror exactly what I was trying to explain, but probably didn't do a very good job of. Note how few wolves were harvested in the middle third of the state? There are mountains and thousands of elk there. Why haven't they colonized those areas?
The wolves mostly stuck to the Rocky Mountains...
So why did the wolves not spread DOWN the Cascades Since they were there first, and from your explanation that would weem the logical line of progression?
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 12:27:21 PM
Special T, take a look at the map at the end of this document. The harvest locations mirror exactly what I was trying to explain, but probably didn't do a very good job of. Note how few wolves were harvested in the middle third of the state? There are mountains and thousands of elk there. Why haven't they colonized those areas?
The wolves mostly stuck to the Rocky Mountains...
So why did the wolves not spread DOWN the Cascades Since they were there first, and from your explanation that would weem the logical line of progression?
That was 2011, look at 2013 harvest locations, I'm pretty sure you will see some farther east, it's just in the last few years that wolves are expanding into central Montana, they simply weren't many there yet in 2011. It's a mute argument.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 12:29:47 PM
Post by: JLS on January 20, 2014, 12:39:40 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 20, 2014, 12:41:10 PM
Even so BP using the logic given to ME/us wolves from the 90's should have spread south. What is the explanation for it?
If you are referring to the Cascades I think the same reason holds true, wolves simply have not migrated south much until now.
There are likely several reasons, I don't think previous wolves formed as large of packs as the northern wolves that were brought in so they may not have been as successful at reprodiucing, poaching may have limited their numbers for many years, perhaps genetic diversity was a factor until more wolves migrated in and made reproduction more successful. It does appear that the wolves that are moving south are doing just fine now.
I do know that wolves were not talked about that much in central MT until the last two years, now everyone there is talking about them because they are moving in and being seen more often.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 20, 2014, 06:01:50 PM
Wyoming folks were the ones that prevented us from hunting wolves in 2010 in Idaho and Montana because they would not submit a reasonable wolf plan to USFWS. MT and ID were way ahead of the curve in realizing that you can sit on the sidelines and cry and whine about how unfair it is or you can submit a reasonable plan and start managing/hunting wolves. So, No, Wyoming was not ahead of ID and MT...I'd say they were a couple years late to helping do anything to harvest them.IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.
I think SpecialT has it right. Wyoming has by far the most reasonable wolf plan that puts the fewest wolves in their state. Washington has the worst plan. That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 20, 2014, 07:06:55 PM
Just because WY played hard ball while ID & MT tired to get along doesnt mean that WY didn't come out better in the end. I think that was a play by the feds to pressure WY, ID & MT. I bet that if the 3 states had hung in tight together they would have been much better off than they are now.What would be different/better in Idaho if they played it like Wyoming? Were the feds going to come in and collect every last wolf and move them back to Canada? Under management in Idaho you can kill 5 wolves a year, trap them, hunt them over most of the year etc. The IDFG can hire gunners, trappers, aerial removal etc. What would be different? I believe MT is similar in their liberal harvest and management tools. I don't see where Wyoming has a better deal.
In the end, if Idaho and Montana had played like WY, then the several hundred wolves harvested by hunters in 2009 and 2011 would not have occurred and you would have more wolves today. Wyoming's hunts didn't start until 2012...once they figured out their little tantrum was not getting them anywhere.
Post by: Special T on January 20, 2014, 07:21:04 PM
Have you ever had rats? If there are rats in the area(like where i live) they will always be around. If you ignore them they soon overcome any and all barriers you put in thier way because there are so many of them. IF you place poisen, and traps out even tho there arn't really many around you will likely never get an infestation. Will you see rat turds? Yep. Will you see the occasional rat? Yep. If you do the easy things to kill them off will you still see them? Yep, however you won't have the same problems your neighbors do. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2014, 04:53:45 AM
Just because WY played hard ball while ID & MT tired to get along doesnt mean that WY didn't come out better in the end. I think that was a play by the feds to pressure WY, ID & MT. I bet that if the 3 states had hung in tight together they would have been much better off than they are now.What would be different/better in Idaho if they played it like Wyoming? Were the feds going to come in and collect every last wolf and move them back to Canada? Under management in Idaho you can kill 5 wolves a year, trap them, hunt them over most of the year etc. The IDFG can hire gunners, trappers, aerial removal etc. What would be different? I believe MT is similar in their liberal harvest and management tools. I don't see where Wyoming has a better deal.
In the end, if Idaho and Montana had played like WY, then the several hundred wolves harvested by hunters in 2009 and 2011 would not have occurred and you would have more wolves today. Wyoming's hunts didn't start until 2012...once they figured out their little tantrum was not getting them anywhere.
Idaho and Montana went along with allowing wolves throughout the state. In WY wolves are shot on sight in 80% of the state and WY has the fewest wolves of the three NRM states, WY definitely benefited by holding out for stricter management. Here in WA they opted to spread wolves throughout the state and went for 15 BP's which is more liberal than any of the states, all the others only have 10 BP's in their plan. :bash:
Post by: Special T on January 21, 2014, 07:21:18 AM
Wolves are like coyotes in the sense that as long as there is prey you can shoot/trap a bunch of them and they keep coming back.
Post by: bearpaw on January 21, 2014, 12:42:04 PM
It should also be noted that they are "Documented" packs which means you have a bunch more than the requirement. There are many ways to skin a cat the documentation game can be slowed by hiring people with little experience, don't provide adequate funding, make the conditions so tight that it makes it really difficult to prove.
Hhhmmm, exactly, sounds like WDFW trapper hiring requirements, no wonder they have documented so few of our wolves, they've got some trappers with degrees but with little or no actual trapping experience. :bash:
Post by: Spurs on January 21, 2014, 05:31:17 PM
It should also be noted that they are "Documented" packs which means you have a bunch more than the requirement. There are many ways to skin a cat the documentation game can be slowed by hiring people with little experience, don't provide adequate funding, make the conditions so tight that it makes it really difficult to prove.
Hhhmmm, exactly, sounds like WDFW trapper hiring requirements, no wonder they have documented so few of our wolves, they've got some trappers with degrees but with little or no actual trapping experience. :bash:
What They Didn’t Tell You About Wolf Recovery
Wolf Numbers Underestimated
There are so many variables involved in attempting to estimate the total number of wolves in a state that any such estimate is prone to large errors even with the best information available. But when the existence of every wolf that has not been part of a "collared" pack is ignored, any such estimate is suspect. For example, local residents reported several wolf packs in Boise County yet FWS had documented only two. When the Team finally documented the existence of three more packs there were 2-1/2 times as many wolf packs as had been recorded and a similar increase in the number of breeding pairs – indicated both by pups and by yearlings that were born in the prior year and survived. Although FWS goes back and adjusts the number of breeding pairs for the prior year when this evidence is documented, this system always results in initially underestimating both total wolves and breeding pairs recovery goals in all three states were met at least 2-3 years before then current FWS estimates said they were, yet the actual number of breeding pairs was not admitted and recorded until after the fact.
"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs"
In his 1984 letter to Lobdell, Bangs listed the "key recovery issues that will be consistently presented to the public." Issue number 6 stated, "Only breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young are important tothe recovery of viable wolf populations. "At this time there is no such thing as a truly ‘confirmed’ wolf’ until it has been determined to have successfully raised young in the wild or has been captured, examined, and monitored with radio telemetry. (F)rom this dayforward we (will) use the strictest definition of confirmed wolf activity (i.e. individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radiocollared and monitored in the wild). "We should be comfortable with this definition in all phases of wolf recovery such as when discussing the criteria for use of an experimental rule or for delisting the species because the population viability criteria have been reached." (emphasis added)
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website) … report.pdf
Lookout wolves: Wildlife officials say pack is up to five members
by ADMIN on Jan 16, 2014 • 1:49 pmNo Comments
By Ann McCreary
Wildlife officials have confirmed that five gray wolves, believed to be a breeding pair and their offspring, are living in the Lookout Pack territory in the mountains southwest of Twisp.
“As of late December … snow trackers were able to confirm five animals traveling together,” said Scott Fitkin, a biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). “We’ve been able to document that the Lookout Pack is a breeding pair for 2013. We’ve been able to document at least two surviving pups.”
Decimated by poaching after the pack was confirmed in 2008, Lookout Pack wolves once numbered as many as 10 animals. For the past couple of years wildlife officials have been aware of two wolves in territory used by the pack, which was the first gray wolf pack seen in the state in more than 70 years.
A trapper working for WDFW will make another attempt, probably beginning later this month, to collar at least one member of the pack. The Lookout Pack wolves have proved “elusive” in past efforts to collar them, said Scott Becker, WDFW wolf biologist.
The Lookout Pack is one of 10 confirmed packs in Washington as of December 2013. Becker said wildlife officials have managed to collar wolves in eight of the packs.
Wildlife officials will be attempting to count the number of wolves in the state during the winter, to prepare an annual report in March.
“We’re probably more than likely to have a few additional packs, but can’t confirm until we get a better count,” Becker said.
State wildlife managers want to collar wolves in order to monitor them to prevent conflicts with humans and livestock, and to assess the recovery of wolves in Washington.
Becker said wildlife officials will traverse the Lookout Pack territory on snowmobiles in search of tracks to try to determine where the wolves are most likely to be found.
Then they will fly over the area in a helicopter and attempt to capture a wolf using a tranquilizer dart or a net.
“We’ll hit it hard [on snowmobiles] the week before we know when the helicopter is going to be in the area, so when we get up in the air it increases our potential of finding them,” Becker said.
He said the minimal snowpack in the mountains this winter makes the job of capturing and collaring wolves more difficult.
“In a lot of cases it’s easier to capture in winter because … deep snow restricts their movements,” Becker said. “If we don’t have snow there’s nothing to slow them down.”
In addition to the 10 confirmed wolf packs in the state, WDFW officials said in December there are two more suspected packs and two packs in areas bordering Washington.
Wolves are protected as an endangered species under state law throughout Washington, and under federal law in the western two-thirds of the state. The federal Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed removing wolves from the endangered species list around the country, and recently closed a comment period on the proposal.
Under the state’s Wolf Management Plan, wolves will be considered recovered when there are 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years. The state is divided into three recovery areas and each area must have four pairs, with an additional three pairs located anywhere in the state.
While wolves remain endangered under state law, they are protected from killing and harassment. Once wolves are deemed recovered, they can be removed from state protection.
http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/16/lookout-wolves-wildlife-officials-say-pack-is-up-to-five-members/ (http://methowvalleynews.com/2014/01/16/lookout-wolves-wildlife-officials-say-pack-is-up-to-five-members/)
Post by: Spurs on January 21, 2014, 05:32:55 PM
Post by: Spurs on January 21, 2014, 05:50:54 PM
Wyoming folks were the ones that prevented us from hunting wolves in 2010 in Idaho and Montana because they would not submit a reasonable wolf plan to USFWS. MT and ID were way ahead of the curve in realizing that you can sit on the sidelines and cry and whine about how unfair it is or you can submit a reasonable plan and start managing/hunting wolves. So, No, Wyoming was not ahead of ID and MT...I'd say they were a couple years late to helping do anything to harvest them.IMO Wyoming understood the problem and delt with the feds correctly from the start, and it has take 10+ years for MT and ID to figure it out...I think you have it backwards...ID and MT figured it out way before WY.
I think SpecialT has it right. Wyoming has by far the most reasonable wolf plan that puts the fewest wolves in their state. Washington has the worst plan. That is what you get when the citizens are willing to roll over to appease the wolf groups. :twocents:
A Concise Clarification On Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan Approval Process
November 23, 2010
As I am reading through and studying State of Wyoming v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, already it appears a breath of legal fresh air to see the skills put forth from a private law agency as compared to that of the federal government, i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when they do cowardly battle in the court of law. In the many court battles dealing with gray wolves and the Endangered Species Act, one’s frustration level grows as legal representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)/Department of Interior, appear inept, unprepared and unwilling to make the strong representation for which it is their jobs to do.
The Wyoming Wolf Coalition, represented in court by Harriet Hageman of Hageman and Brighton Law Office, did a masterful job in many ways to notch a victory for the Coalition.
The 104-page court ruling takes awhile to get through and contains information that can and will be used in potential appeals and future court cases concerning the gray wolf and Endangered Species Act; as surely there will be.
Obviously the opening statement by Hageman got through to Judge Alan Johnson as the ruling clarifies for all of us that which has been lied about for so long; that Wyoming was right to stand up to USFWS. The ruling’s explanation of what took place in attempts to delist gray wolves in Wyoming is clear and concise.
“In this case, the petitioners assert that the FWS has chosen to ignore the prior history of this case, has caved in to political pressures, ignoring the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and has relied oninformation other that the best scientific and commercial data available in making its decision not to approve Wyoming’s wolf management plan providing for a dual classification (trophy and predator) within certain areas of the state of Wyoming. The petitioners contend that the FWS allowed political and public relationsconsiderations and speculative concerns about post-delisting lawsuits to influence its decision, even though the FWS’s own biologists and an independent panel of peer review biologists believed that classifying wolves as predators throughout most of Wyoming would not threaten the viability of the gray wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, as long as the state classified wolves as trophy game in Northwestern Wyoming.
On December 12, 2007, FWS approved a Wyoming wolf management scheme. On February 27, 2008, FWS issued a final rule recognizing NRM DPS and delisting the NRM wolf population in all of the DPS. 73 Fed. Reg. 10514 (2008 rule).
Wyoming’s then-approved wolf management scheme classified wolves as trophy game in a designated area of northwestern Wyoming and as predators throughout the remainder of Wyoming. After the delisting decision, the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued a preliminary injunction which relisted the NRM wolf population pending final resolution in that matter. Petitioners state that the Montana District Court chastised FWS for not explaining why this dual classification in Wyoming was approved in 2007 when it had been rejected in 2004 and 2006. The petitioners state: ‘This rebuke from the court left the Service with only one option if it wanted to save the delisting rule — the Service had to admit that it was wrong to demand the statewide trophy game classification in 2004 and 2006. Rather than admit this, the Service instead rescinded the delisting rule and eventually revoked it’s previous approval of the state’s wolf management scheme.’ State/Park County Brief, Docket entry 26 at 2. FWS ‘now again refuses to delist wolves in Wyoming unless the state adopts a statewide trophy game classification for wolves’ and has ‘chosen pride over its legal obligation to follow the unambiguous requirements of the ESA[.] Id.”
At this point in time during the background information of Johnson’s ruling, the judge explains Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall and how it pertains to Wyoming’s attempts at getting approval of a wolf management plan and being reject after pressure from environmentalists to do so.
Judge Johnson finishes his explanation:
“Thereafter, FWS met with Wyoming representatives, notified them of shortcomings in the Wyoming scheme and requested revisions. Wyoming declined to do so. At FWS request, on October 14, 2008, the 2008 rule was vacated and remanded to the agency for further consideration. Docket Entry 31 at 7-8; Exhibit B, Docket Entry 27 at 15125.
After this ruling on the preliminary injunction in Montana, Wyoming prepared emergency regulations and a draft revised wolf management plan on October 27, 2008. Attachment C to Document 26 (Emergency Chapter 21 Rule) and Attachment D to Docket Entry 26 (Chapter 21 Rule). The FWS notified the governor on January 15, 2009 that Wyoming no longer had an FWS approved wolf management plan.”
And there you have it. For months news media and environmentalists, along with the uninformed spouted off that Wyoming was the problem with the delisting effort of wolves. They also stated that Wyoming refused to draft a wolf plan that the USFWS would approve. The information contained in this court ruling clearly lays out the events and time line of how Wyoming did have an approved plan that for no explained reason was rejected.
This of course was the basis of the case, that the USFWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in yanking out from under Wyoming its approved wolf plan.
I believe there is some crow eating going on.
Tom Remington
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/1 (http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/1) … l-process/
Post by: idahohuntr on January 21, 2014, 06:01:11 PM
"Ignore All But Known Breeding Pairs and Packs":dunno: Not sure what you are getting at here.
For population viability analyses (PVA) scientists are concerned with reproduction...and given the structure of wolf packs (alphas do most of the breeding)...from a recovery (or "viability") sense, you would only be concerned with breeding pairs.
Your post seems to insinuate the government intentionally under reports wolves...I do not believe this is the case. Every official in Idaho or Washington I have heard discuss wolf numbers is very explicit in stating that their estimates are the MINIMUM number of wolves in the state...not an estimate of the total number of wolves.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 21, 2014, 06:10:50 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: So on the crow eating...which state had to go back and do what USFWS told them to in the first place? Oh, thats right, Wyoming...so that they could also get to hunt wolves like their better behaved neighbors Idaho and Montana. :chuckle: This is a nice piece of revisionist history though. :tup:
And there you have it. For months news media and environmentalists, along with the uninformed spouted off that Wyoming was the problem with the delisting effort of wolves. They also stated that Wyoming refused to draft a wolf plan that the USFWS would approve. The information contained in this court ruling clearly lays out the events and time line of how Wyoming did have an approved plan that for no explained reason was rejected.
This of course was the basis of the case, that the USFWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in yanking out from under Wyoming its approved wolf plan.
I believe there is some crow eating going on.
Tom Remington
Post by: Spurs on January 21, 2014, 06:35:03 PM
The 104-page court ruling takes awhile to get through and contains information that can and will be used in potential appeals and future court cases concerning the gray wolf and Endangered Species Act; as surely there will be.
Obviously the opening statement by Hageman got through to Judge Alan Johnson as the ruling clarifies for all of us that which has been lied about for so long; that Wyoming was right to stand up to USFWS. The ruling’s explanation of what took place in attempts to delist gray wolves in Wyoming is clear and concise.
“In this case, the petitioners assert that the FWS has chosen to ignore the prior history of this case, has caved in to political pressures, ignoring the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and has relied oninformation other that the best scientific and commercial data available in making its decision not to approve Wyoming’s wolf management plan providing for a dual classification (trophy and predator) within certain areas of the state of Wyoming. The petitioners contend that the FWS allowed political and public relationsconsiderations and speculative concerns about post-delisting lawsuits to influence its decision, even though the FWS’s own biologists and an independent panel of peer review biologists believed that classifying wolves as predators throughout most of Wyoming would not threaten the viability of the gray wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, as long as the state classified wolves as trophy game in Northwestern Wyoming.
Wyoming is shooting wolves as a predator, where is ID, MT, WA, and OR?
Post by: Special T on January 21, 2014, 08:30:59 PM
I know from friends in WY that hunters in WY are happier than hunters in WA, ID or MT with thier state and/or game dept Idahoehunter. PERHAPS in the end they didn't fair any better than any other state, BUT at least WY still has hunter support.
If you operate from a position of power you HAVE to be dealt with. IF you act like a submissive female dog you will be treated like one. IMO WY acted like the former, not the latter.
Post by: JLS on January 21, 2014, 10:21:08 PM
Spurs, I think its a poker term... Being Slow Played ;)
I know from friends in WY that hunters in WY are happier than hunters in WA, ID or MT with thier state and/or game dept Idahoehunter. PERHAPS in the end they didn't fair any better than any other state, BUT at least WY still has hunter support.
If you operate from a position of power you HAVE to be dealt with. IF you act like a submissive female dog you will be treated like one. IMO WY acted like the former, not the latter.
I saw how much support Wyoming Game and Fish had last legislative session when their budget got completely axed.
Post by: Special T on January 22, 2014, 09:42:00 AM
Which western state do you think is doing the best job of managaing the resources for sportmen?
Post by: bearpaw on January 24, 2014, 11:03:09 AM
Spurs, I think its a poker term... Being Slow Played ;)
I know from friends in WY that hunters in WY are happier than hunters in WA, ID or MT with thier state and/or game dept Idahoehunter. PERHAPS in the end they didn't fair any better than any other state, BUT at least WY still has hunter support.
If you operate from a position of power you HAVE to be dealt with. IF you act like a submissive female dog you will be treated like one. IMO WY acted like the former, not the latter.
I know people who have moved from WA to WY and are much happier with the F&G there. (especially regarding wolf management)