Post by: Bean Counter on June 14, 2012, 02:48:16 AM
One of the topics I'm a little weak on is the historic distribution agreement. Defenders claim that ungulates evolved alongside wolves for thousands of years. i know that most of what they put out is b.s. but I'm wondering how you could respond to such a claim.
My traditional understanding was that deer, elk, bison, etc numbered in the millions in North America before the white man. Then they were subsistence hunted down to the thousands, then brought back to.the millions by regulated management and hunting. Do we know what historic distribution of wolves was like over this time? I thought that part of how deer numbers were brought back was by wolf poisoning, trapping, and hunting. :dunno:
Post by: MikeWalking on June 14, 2012, 03:33:12 AM
Bison were hunted down to near extinction out of greed.
Post by: 300rum on June 14, 2012, 06:40:16 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2012, 07:12:02 AM
It is not only naive but unhealthy to deny that we've been hunting and gathering for 2.6 million years, since the use of tools first began. In the relaitevely short period of time since we've been cultivating food (the last 10,000 years), our bodies have not evolved and our genetic makeup is basically unchanged. 10,000 years is the blink of an eye relative to our evolution. This is the reason for the obesity problems our society faces and why so many of the Defenders of Wildlife are cranky and pale - they ignore millions of years of habits and genetics, and our internal physical requirements and urges. It is also unhealthy and ignorant to not consider man a vital part of nature and its balance. We've always been part of nature and will be until the end of life on our planet as we know it.
The debate is still out as to how much we need wolves in the food chain. I would argue that the need for another apex predator is non-existant. Because wolves were a main competitor for our food and a danger to our population, we eliminated them and took their place at the top. Is it possible that there's a healthy balance where wolves can become again a balanced part of the food chain? It's possible, but I believe not in the numbers that are expected here in the NW. Are ungulate numbers hurting from the absense of wolves? No, they're not. Because hunting is such a useful and flexible tool for game management, the federal and state governments are able to adjust harvests to conform exactly to optimal population levels and projected optimal carrying capacities.
We can deny our genetics and our evolution, but that won't make them go away. We can blame humans for living in former wolf habitat, but there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. The healthiest people on the planet are those who realize who and what we are, from where we came, and how to preserve our bodies according to our makeup. Those who choose to live in opposition to how their bodies are designed will struggle constantly with not only their physical problems, but with their emotional problems, as well. We are hunter gatherers. I personally acknowledge what I am and have benefited immensly from acknowledging and embracing that.
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2012, 08:33:08 AM
Deer numbers were mostly brought back by the ban on commercial hunting. There was a time when they were shot year around in unregulated numbers. Private hunters and sportsmen's groups put an end to it.
Bison were hunted down to near extinction out of greed.
Specifically, it was market hunting for hides, meat, and tongues that nearly exterminated the buffalo. Fortunately, it has been conservation, sportsman, private ranching, and indian tribes that have brought buffalo numbers back up to where they are today.
There is a very good account here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
The world is simply a different place than it was a few thousand years ago. We can't have all animals roaming freely everywhere in human populated areas but there are wild and remote places for wolves to inhabit and there are increasing numbers of wolves in these areas. There is no reason that wolves must inhabit the whole of North America or that we must reintroduce wolves to save their fate, their numbers are already increasing in the north and most areas where they exist, there is no danger of extinction.
For wolf distribution and evolution, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf
Gray wolf
Subspecies
The gray wolf, grey wolf, or common wolf[3] (Canis lupus) is the largest extant member of the dog family of mammals, the Canidae. Though once abundant over much of Eurasia, North Africa and North America, the gray wolf inhabits a reduced portion of its former range due to widespread destruction of its habitat, human encroachment, and the resulting human-wolf encounters that sparked broad extirpation. Although the species still faces some threats, it is relatively widespread with a stable population trend and has therefore been assessed as Least Concern by IUCN since 2004.[1] Today, wolves are protected in some areas, hunted for sport in others, or may be subject to population control or extermination as threats to livestock, people, and pets. They occur primarily but not exclusively in wilderness and remote areas.
The gray wolf has a slender but powerful build. Its head is large and heavy, with wide foreheads, strong jaws and long and blunt muzzles. The ears are relatively small and triangular and the limbs are long and robust, with comparatively small paws. The animal's size varies depending on the region, with northern wolves being larger. Despite its name, the gray wolf's coat colour ranges from almost pure white to black. Wolves are social predators that live in nuclear families consisting of a mated pair, their offspring and, occasionally, adopted immature wolves.
Wolves communicate over long distances by howling. Other forms of communication include growls, barks, whines and various body postures. Wolves primarily feed on ungulates, which they hunt by wearing them down in short chases. They are typically apex predators throughout their range, with only humans and tigers posing significant threats to them.
Genetic studies reaffirm that the gray wolf is the ancestor of the domestic dog. A number of other Canis lupus subspecies have been identified, though the actual number of subspecies is still open to discussion. In areas where human cultures and wolves both occur, wolves frequently feature in the folklore and mythology of those cultures, both positively and negatively.
Evolution
The most likely ancestral candidate of Canis lupus is Canis lepophagus, a small, narrow skulled North American canid of the Miocene era, which may have also given rise to coyotes. Some larger, broader skulled C. lepophagus fossils found in northern Texas may represent the ancestral stock from which true wolves derive. The first true wolves began to appear at the end of the Blancan North American Stage and the onset of the early Irvingtonian. Among them was Canis priscolatrans, a small species closely resembling the red wolf, which colonised Eurasia by crossing the Bering land bridge. The new Eurasian C. priscolatrans population evolved into Canis etruscus, then Canis mosbachensis.[4]
This primitive wolf closely resembled the modern southern wolf populations of the Arabian Peninsula and South Asia, which were once distributed in Europe in the early Quaternary glaciation until about 500,000 years ago (see Subspecies).[5] C. mosbachensis evolved in the direction of Canis lupus, and recolonised North America in the late Rancholabrean era. There, a larger canid species called Canis dirus was already established, but it became extinct 8,000 years ago after the large prey it relied on was wiped out. Competition with the newly arrived gray wolf for the smaller and swifter prey that survived may have contributed to its decline. With the extinction of dire wolf, gray wolf became the only large and widespread canid species left.[4]
The North American recolonisation likely occurred in several waves, with the most distinctive populations occurring in the periphery of the range. These populations (C. l. arctos on the high arctic islands, C. l. lycaon in the eastern forests, C. l. baileyi in the far south and C. l. rufus at the continental corner opposite the point of invasion) may represent survivors of early migrations from Eurasia. C. l. baileyi, C. l. lycaon and C. l. rufus display some primitive traits and systematic affinity to one another. Fossil remains from the late Pleistocene of large bodied wolves similar to C. l. arctos and C. l. albus occur in coastal southern California, indicating that large North American gray wolf subspecies were once widespread, and may have been driven southward by glaciation, though wolves no longer reside there. Fossils of small bodied wolves similar to C. l. baileyi have been found in a range encompassing Kansas and southern California. This indicates a late Pleistocene population flux, in which large, Arctic forms of wolf moved farther south, with smaller, warmth adapted wolves expanding as the climate moderated.[6]
The now extinct Japanese wolves were descended from large Siberian wolves which colonised the Korean Peninsula and Japan, before it separated from mainland Asia, 20,000 years ago during the Pleistocene. During the Holocene, the Tsugaru Strait widened and isolated Honshu from Hokkaidō, thus causing climactic changes leading to the extinction of most large bodied ungulates inhabiting the archipelago. Japanese wolves likely underwent a process of island dwarfism 7,000–13,000 years ago in response to these climatological and ecological pressures. C. l. hattai (formerly native to Hokkaidō) was significantly larger than its southern cousin C. l. hodophilax, as it inhabited higher elevations and had access to larger prey, as well as a continuing genetic interaction with dispersing wolves from Siberia.[7]
Subspecies
Since 2005, 37 subspecies of wolf are recognised, including the red wolf and not including two Canis lupus subspecies: Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris. Wolf subspecies are divided into two categories:[8]
"Northern wolves": large-sized, large-brained wolves with strong carnassials which inhabit North America, Europe and northern Asia.[9]
"Southern wolves": native to North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and South Asia. They are characterised by their smaller size, skull and teeth, and a short and thin coat without appreciable underwool.[10] They may represent a relict population of early wolves, as they closely resemble fossil European wolves.[5] The rate of changes observed in their DNA sequences date them to about 800,000 years, as opposed to the American and European lineages which stretch back only 150,000.[11] The vocalisations of southern wolves have a higher proportion of short, sharp barking,[9] and they seldom howl.[12] It is likely that dogs and dingoes stem from this group.[9][13]
Wolves in Central and East Asia are intermediate in form and size to northern and southern wolves.[5] Differences in brain size are well defined in different wolf populations, with wolves in northern Eurasia having the highest values, North American wolves having slightly smaller brains, and the southern wolves having the smallest. Southern wolves have brains 5–10% smaller than northern wolves.[14]
Post by: washelkhunter on June 14, 2012, 08:47:37 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 14, 2012, 08:58:55 AM
I don't mind having wolves around, and there's absolutely no doubt that they had a part in honing the genetics of ungulate populations.
In today's altered environment, our hunting could replace wolf predation and maintain healthy herds. But, we're going to be sharing with wolves- like it or not... I think we can support both wolves and robust herds if we manage habitat properly. If we would properly harvet the forests, treat weeds, replant forage species, protect some core habitats, and manage ourselves a little better- we could have a pile of wildlife. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2012, 09:12:39 AM
The market for buffalo was a serious problem for them, but what really led to their near extirpation was a military tactic to eliminate the buffalo to move the indian tribes out of the great plains- no buffalo=no indians....it was that tactic that led to the mindless slaughter and waste of buffalo.
I don't mind having wolves around, and there's absolutely no doubt that they had a part in honing the genetics of ungulate populations.
In today's altered environment, our hunting could replace wolf predation and maintain healthy herds. But, we're going to be sharing with wolves- like it or not... I think we can support both wolves and robust herds if we manage habitat properly. If we would properly harvet the forests, treat weeds, replant forage species, protect some core habitats, and manage ourselves a little better- we could have a pile of wildlife. :twocents:
:yeah: it just gets complicated because everyone has a different idea on how to manage.
Post by: Pathfinder101 on June 14, 2012, 09:20:08 AM
Not sure of the historical accuracy of exterminating the buffalo as a "military tactic". I have never seen any evidence that the Army spent any time or resources shooting buffalo. No doubt that the extermination of the bison "won" the Indian Wars against the plains tribes, but I don't think that it was a tactic or that the Army did it intentionally. It was market hunters that did the exterminating. It just happened to work out in the Army's favor.
Post by: Special T on June 14, 2012, 09:59:06 AM
It absolutely boggles my mind that we strive so hard to go backwards. :bash: Its kinda funny if you can get past how Stupid it is. :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on June 14, 2012, 10:01:59 AM
So, to put it in a nutshell, if we still had millions of buffalo, then the wolves wouldn't be much of a problem. I guess that is probably accurate. :dunno:
Not sure of the historical accuracy of exterminating the buffalo as a "military tactic". I have never seen any evidence that the Army spent any time or resources shooting buffalo. No doubt that the extermination of the bison "won" the Indian Wars against the plains tribes, but I don't think that it was a tactic or that the Army did it intentionally. It was market hunters that did the exterminating. It just happened to work out in the Army's favor.
It is recorded as historical fact, mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
Of course it was bad for the buffalo, and even though most of us probably disagree with it today, but from a strategic thinking standpoint during a time of war it was sadly very effective.
Post by: Bean Counter on June 14, 2012, 11:01:57 AM
How is it that with wolves living here for millenia that ungulate numbers were in the tens/hundreds of millions when white settlers arrived and not numbering in the thousands? For contemporary comparison consider consider the Lolo zone where elk numbers have gone from about 16,000 to about 2,000in about a decade.(?)
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 14, 2012, 11:07:21 AM
Lots of good thoughts by lots of smart people, but nobody really nailed what I want to know. So I must rephrase...
How is it that with wolves living here for millenia that ungulate numbers were in the tens/hundreds of millions when white settlers arrived and not numbering in the thousands? For contemporary comparison consider consider the Lolo zone where elk numbers have gone from about 16,000 to about 2,000in about a decade.(?)
I believe the difference now is because we'd replaced the wolf as the top apex predator. Now we have both.
Also, I can't speak to ungulate numbers before record keeping. I don't know other than what I've read about the Lewis and Clark expedition what ungulate numbers were in this area when wolves weren't controlled and white men weren't here.
Post by: Bean Counter on June 14, 2012, 11:22:23 AM
Quote
...I don't mind having wolves around, and there's absolutely no doubt that they had a part in honing the genetics of ungulate populations....
Not sure how I feel about this. I don't want wolves extinct but I definitely want the *censored*s to pay for their management, surveys, and compensation to livestock owners. But since *censored*s are too cheap to open their wallet and pay for what they want, then we as hunters and trappers would be able to keep their population in the brink on the brink of extinction. :twocents:
Post by: humanure on June 14, 2012, 12:15:36 PM
The market for buffalo was a serious problem for them, but what really led to their near extirpation was a military tactic to eliminate the buffalo to move the indian tribes out of the great plains- no buffalo=no indians....it was that tactic that led to the mindless slaughter and waste of buffalo.
I don't mind having wolves around, and there's absolutely no doubt that they had a part in honing the genetics of ungulate populations.
In today's altered environment, our hunting could replace wolf predation and maintain healthy herds. But, we're going to be sharing with wolves- like it or not... I think we can support both wolves and robust herds if we manage habitat properly. If we would properly harvet the forests, treat weeds, replant forage species, protect some core habitats, and manage ourselves a little better- we could have a pile of wildlife. :twocents:
I would say this is a pretty fair assumption of what was going on, but there's one factor that I NEVER see mentioned, and maybe someone could shed light on it: The idea that farmers also pushed to removed bison because they were not able to be tamed for ranching, and that they wanted the plains the bison depended on for their cattle. Is there any truth to this?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 14, 2012, 12:42:16 PM
I don't think hunters should support any animal being managed to be on the brink of extinction. Hunters should work to manage the species as a game animal and maintain the population as a reasonable level.Quote...I don't mind having wolves around, and there's absolutely no doubt that they had a part in honing the genetics of ungulate populations....
Not sure how I feel about this. I don't want wolves extinct but I definitely want the *censored*s to pay for their management, surveys, and compensation to livestock owners. But since *censored*s are too cheap to open their wallet and pay for what they want, then we as hunters and trappers would be able to keep their population in the brink on the brink of extinction. :twocents:
Hunters should also support habitat improvements to grow more wildlife that would be available to hunters and predators. I keep saying it.... we could have SO MANY more elk if the habitat was managed properly...
Post by: humanure on June 14, 2012, 12:47:31 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 14, 2012, 01:01:27 PM
Lots of good thoughts by lots of smart people, but nobody really nailed what I want to know. So I must rephrase...I will take a shot at answering this... with any predator population it's bad business to 'over kill' or run yourself out of food. (the 'thrill killing' some people sensationalize is antoher topic all together). Wolf numbers were kept in check by 1) disease 2) other wolves 3) prey availability---add to this the additional habitat that was historically available and the lack of human hunting pressure, and wolves had a pretty good thing going.
How is it that with wolves living here for millenia that ungulate numbers were in the tens/hundreds of millions when white settlers arrived and not numbering in the thousands? For contemporary comparison consider consider the Lolo zone where elk numbers have gone from about 16,000 to about 2,000in about a decade.(?)
They didn't eat all the game because as wolf numbers got too high the game numbers would dip and the short term response was disease and wolves competing for resources (killing each other---see Druid pack in YS.) As wolf numbers got too high there would also be increased risk of disease, which would settle it back down.
The predator prey relationship worked so well becasue they we in a basically unaltered landscape...the reason things went so haywire in Lolo and YS is because there were tons of elk and no wolves for so long that when they were reintroduced into an artifically high prey population they were allowed to proliferate beyond a 'natural' population level. They went ape*censored* on the huge abundance of game and when the game started to dwindle, they had to expand range (stepping on each others toes caused pack infighting) and led to wolves killing other packs to maintain a range with adequate prey...
The populations were always changing and adapting to resource availability. Our current management of the resource for constant supply doesn't really mesh with the more natural predaor/prey relationship.
Post by: humanure on June 14, 2012, 01:08:11 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on June 14, 2012, 01:27:04 PM
Post by: Humptulips on June 16, 2012, 08:24:44 PM
Ok, so it's great to say there was a lot of bison but with the wolf arguments we are talking elk and deer. Does anyone know what their numbers were like say pre 1800?
I really believe an uncontrolled predator population equals a prey population stuck at it's lowest possible number. Ever hear the term predator pit.
I also believe if we can manage the predator population we can have more of both. More ungulates means more prey basis for wolves which means more wolves until they get out of balance. Maintain that balance and we'll have more elk for humans and wolves.
I'm not really that fond of the idea of wolves moving in but if we must have them let us mange their numbers instead of no management which is what many of the animal lovers want.
Trouble is right now we have no management of other predators such as cougar and coyotes.
I think of it like a bank account. The ungulates acrue interest every year in the form of births. Cougar, coyotes, bears and humans withdraw that interest. (Lately I think they have been dipping into the principal.) There is no room for wolves unless one of the other predators cut back. Grow the ungulate numbers though and there is more "interest" for hunters and predators. Keep reducing the elk numbers like in ID, everybody loses.
Post by: washelkhunter on June 16, 2012, 08:46:30 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on June 16, 2012, 09:17:45 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on June 16, 2012, 09:38:31 PM
washelkhunter, where can I find the data that shows that there are "millions" more deer today than there has ever been on this continent? I don't trust Wikipedia since anyone can edit things on it.:yeah: You might as well not even reference it if its coming from Wikipedia.
Post by: KFhunter on June 16, 2012, 10:34:31 PM
I think the biggest factor is lack of winter hold over areas.
There was tons of open scrub foothills to hold over in.
Today the foothills are farmed or full of houses and covered with super highways.
Also back in the day there were massive recovering burn offs they could winter in. Indians would burn the plains, unchecked beetle kills and drout would take out huge swaths of timer land.
Now the burned off areas are too small to winter in and have been substituted with small to fairly large logging areas interlaced with roads the wolves cover a lot of ground on. Easy for them to come upon a small herd or lone animal. I think the moose take it hard in this respect.
So the herds die off or retract so a single herd of Elk has a constant wolf presence at their heels, hard to calf out or hold over in winter like that.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 16, 2012, 10:45:30 PM
Post by: Special T on June 17, 2012, 08:18:51 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2012, 10:02:06 AM
Post by: washelkhunter on June 17, 2012, 10:48:29 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 17, 2012, 10:49:51 AM
Post by: Humptulips on June 17, 2012, 12:37:23 PM
Archeological evidence shows good evidence of robust ungulate populations. the Indians in NE Washington could kill upwards of 50 deer a day on some hunts..with clubs and bows... I would guess that there was enough game around and the entire pre settlement time ( millenia) was not some kind of "predator pit".
See what I mean. It's all guess work and our guess work is clouded by our personal bias. I find it hard to believe there has been enough archeological work to make a guess on ungulate populations in the west.
Lewis and Clark found game so rare at times they would have starved had it not been for help form indians yet you say indians killed 50 deer a day with clubs.
Does anyone really know what was out there 200 years ago? No one has yet posted anything but opinion about this.
Post by: bearpaw on June 17, 2012, 01:30:50 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 17, 2012, 01:41:14 PM
There is another article I am looking for, basically a historical article about the Olympics. I read it before and had lots of old photos. But basically said that early settlers found the area to have little game because of all the predators. The version of the forest service rangers at the time hired rangers to mostly be trappers and predator hunters such that they estimated the high predator populations were keeping game from being available for settlers.
I've also read through some of the Lewis and Clark journals, and when they get to somewhere in Idaho, the amount of game dimished and they mostly saw bears and wolves and would eat wolves. They were having to kill their own horses due to such scarce game. Then when they got far enough down the Columbia they were able to trade with Indians for salmon and camas and dogs for food.
http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=1805-10-02.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl (http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=1805-10-02.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl)
Post by: Fishnfowler on June 17, 2012, 08:30:36 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 17, 2012, 08:34:21 PM
Can't wait until wolf season
Post by: Pathfinder101 on June 17, 2012, 10:02:37 PM
So, to put it in a nutshell, if we still had millions of buffalo, then the wolves wouldn't be much of a problem. I guess that is probably accurate. :dunno:
Not sure of the historical accuracy of exterminating the buffalo as a "military tactic". I have never seen any evidence that the Army spent any time or resources shooting buffalo. No doubt that the extermination of the bison "won" the Indian Wars against the plains tribes, but I don't think that it was a tactic or that the Army did it intentionally. It was market hunters that did the exterminating. It just happened to work out in the Army's favor.
It is recorded as historical fact, mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
Of course it was bad for the buffalo, and even though most of us probably disagree with it today, but from a strategic thinking standpoint during a time of war it was sadly very effective.
Interesting. I have never seen this Bearpaw. I am a little leary about Wikipedia though... :dunno:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 18, 2012, 02:33:21 PM
Archeological evidence shows good evidence of robust ungulate populations. the Indians in NE Washington could kill upwards of 50 deer a day on some hunts..with clubs and bows... I would guess that there was enough game around and the entire pre settlement time ( millenia) was not some kind of "predator pit".
See what I mean. It's all guess work and our guess work is clouded by our personal bias. I find it hard to believe there has been enough archeological work to make a guess on ungulate populations in the west.
Lewis and Clark found game so rare at times they would have starved had it not been for help form indians yet you say indians killed 50 deer a day with clubs.
Does anyone really know what was out there 200 years ago? No one has yet posted anything but opinion about this.
How 'bout this- from the information gathered from archeological records- it's clear that game animals were abundant enough to support tribes that hunted with clubs and bows... So, I would extrapolate that populations were robust. :) I'm just being a smartass.
I know what you mean and have often wondered what things were really like back then. Sadly, even with all the hunting harvest data and counts the WDFW can't even provide a 'head count' on deer or elk populations here...any historic data is going to be pretty fluffy stuff.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 18, 2012, 03:18:23 PM
There are millions more deer today than has ever been on this continent. :tup:
There's absolutely no way to substantiate this statement.
Post by: Special T on June 18, 2012, 03:30:33 PM
Post by: LRP on June 18, 2012, 06:23:23 PM
Post by: runamuk on June 18, 2012, 07:29:05 PM
If wolves are considered to be an endangered species, then bison should be as well, and I don't understand why they don't feel the need to re-establish bison populations in all the states where they were once present. If they must do so with wolves, then do the same with bison. It should be all or nothing.
It is called the cattle industry ;) unions got nothing on them :chuckle:
Post by: Special T on June 19, 2012, 09:48:21 AM
Wolves and elk/deer can coexist, but at a much lower level... The coolest thing about modern wildlife mgt is the MAXIMAZATION of carrying capacity or just less than it so we can see and harvest lots of animals...
Post by: nwwanderer on June 19, 2012, 06:46:37 PM