PDA

View Full Version : Wolf vs. coyote


deepforks
November 30, 2011, 10:34 PM
for those that may not realize the shear size difference between wolves and coyotes, take a look. if any of you want to come hunt idaho, i urge you to pick up a wolf tag or two. you can basically hunt them statewide until the end of march. just killed my buck, so now it's time to focus on these devil dogs!!!

tmlynch
November 30, 2011, 10:43 PM
Wow.

That is a significant difference. That wolf looks pretty big to me. Or maybe the coyote is really small.

Could you take the picture again with a yard stick against the tree? :D

Regards,
Tom

deepforks
November 30, 2011, 10:51 PM
hell, i wish i took the pic. sent to me in an email. i did film three black wolves a few weeks ago while hunting. unfortunately they were way too far to shoot at. heres the footage. sorry for how shakey it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2I5sKik72I

aaalaska
December 1, 2011, 02:34 AM
Wolves think coyotes are yummy, that's why coyotes are so fast.

Hunter Customs
December 1, 2011, 09:29 AM
Wolf vs. coyote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for those that may not realize the shear size difference between wolves and coyotes, take a look. if any of you want to come hunt idaho, i urge you to pick up a wolf tag or two. you can basically hunt them statewide until the end of march. just killed my buck, so now it's time to focus on these devil dogs!!!
Attached Images 380332_2757297374559_1321490289_33129849_697897697_n[1].jpg (70.3 KB, 53 views)


Great picture and that really tells it like it is.
Would you happen to know what a non-resident hunting permit and wolf tag cost?
Thanks for posting the picture.
Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com

tahunua001
December 1, 2011, 10:15 AM
I really am looking forward to hunting these rat bastards first chance I get

seansean1444
December 1, 2011, 10:20 AM
x2 ^^^^^^^

briandg
December 1, 2011, 01:29 PM
The freakin idiots that romanticize wolves and have these grandiose fantasies about how wolves are such an awesome part of nature are out of touch with reality. IMO, they should not have been reintroduced. It served no purpose, IMO, other than letting people feel good about having wolves running around.

as far as I'm concerned, wolves are nothing but another invasive "alien" species that has nothing significant to give to a balanced ecosystem, but I know that lots of people think I'm just plain stupid..

warbirdlover
December 1, 2011, 03:29 PM
Wolves were part of nature in the "old days" but re-introducing them into (now) higher human population areas was the dumbest thing I've ever seen by Wisconsin's DNR. We have them on our hunting land now and they get "bolder" every year. We've had two "confrontations" with our hunters and the alpha (black) wolf. These wolf lovers should be aware of what might happen with their kids or family members walking around in the woods unarmed with wolves present. They will just be part of the food chain for the wolves. I had a DNR biologist (relative) claim they'll just run away from you. Yeah, right.

One other relative got a special "wolf" Wisconsin license plate and chose the number/words "KILLEM" on it.

And now we've had cougars on our land and nearby. This is "central" Wisconsin, not northern Wisconsin! When will it end. :rolleyes:

tahunua001
December 1, 2011, 04:00 PM
ugh here we go again...these things were not reintroduced...they were introduced.

the indigenous wolves of idaho were red wolves...little larger than that coyote but a damn bit smaller than that wolf and they weren't pack hunters and had a higher mortality rate because they were not acclimatized to a harsher environment.

these canadian gray wolves are a freaking infestation that were forced on us by a politician that doesn't know the difference between a grizzly bear and a poodle. last year idaho declared a state of emergency because of these beasts and that is why they went directly from a protected species to the longest hunting season of any game animal in the state.

rshanneck2002
December 1, 2011, 04:01 PM
Same here in MI next door., cougers and black bears showing up in southern Mi more and more. A month ago they killed a black bear inside the city limits of Grand Rapids Mi a city of 250,000 people. then last week another showed up just outside the city limits. the are moving south for sure. this is in SW MI which is heavily populated most places.

JohnO
December 1, 2011, 04:30 PM
That's pretty easy.

If it's small enough to kick it and walk away, it's a yote.

If it's big enough to make you wet your pants, it's a wolf.

BUFF
December 1, 2011, 05:09 PM
So I guess you're team edward and not team jacob?:p

Sorry, I have a teenage daughter.

Coyotes are fair game around here. There is a season for them, but most ranchers just shoot on sight.

Couple years ago a pack came into the yard and snatched my house dog (chihuahua/terrier mix) at night. Lucky for her I grabbed my postol and took out after them yelling like a banshee. They dropped her after a while and ran off.

Glad we don't have wolves roaming around. Never realized how big they are. Wow.

tahunua001
December 1, 2011, 05:18 PM
So I guess you're team edward and not team jacob?

Shane? ART? 1911? anyone? we need a banishment here!!!!! :D:D:D

BUFF
December 1, 2011, 05:25 PM
Said I was sorry!:o:D

tahunua001
December 1, 2011, 05:34 PM
I know, I just had add my .02 about it...all in good fun of course

deepforks
December 4, 2011, 12:39 PM
bob hunter, an annual hunting license in idaho for a non-res. is $154.75. i'm pretty sure you can get a 3 day or just a small game license too. a non-res. wolf tag is $31.75. that is cheap compared to the non-res. wolf tag fee in 2009. they were ridiculously expensive back then. just goes to show that idaho now wants everyone to come participate:D as of nov. 30th, there have been 147 wolves killed in idaho. heres a pic of a track that was taken very close to where i filmed those black wolves. the guy just took it about a week ago. you will not mistake these for yote tracks if you come across them:eek:
thats a good buck track, and it even makes it look small!

MOshooter65202
December 8, 2011, 09:54 AM
Here's a comparison picture a friend posted.
Not sure how big this person is pictured in the photo? But the wolf looks Huge!

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/383615_10150404812736342_722191341_8443138_1315372000_n.jpg

warbirdlover
December 8, 2011, 12:03 PM
I didn't know there were red wolves and canadian wolves. I'm sure we have the canadian wolves because they are huge. I've got some pics of them taken by one of the bowhunters on our land. This is one of the small, younger ones. The alpha is a huge black male.

See my thread on "No Wolves this year"...... :eek:

grubbylabs
December 8, 2011, 10:36 PM
Deep forks where abouts are you at. I am wanting to go fill my wolf tag but time and opportunity are limited.

I was just at my inlaws last weekend and seen a few tracks out by Bone. I might be going back with some looking glasses and a rifle.

Deja vu
December 9, 2011, 08:53 AM
I am an Idaho resident with a wolf tag. I have seen a few this year but sense I bought my tag I have not seen a single wolf with in range. I saw one about 300 yards a few weeks ago but that is well out of range for my 357 magnum (what I had at the time). Even with my 45/70s that would be a very long shot and out of my ability.

Onward Allusion
December 9, 2011, 11:15 AM
Crap! That pic really puts the difference in perspective. :eek:

Indi
December 9, 2011, 11:56 AM
MOshooter6502...... Holy CRAP:eek: Is that guy a midget? Or is that wolf just a freakin monster. WOW i didnt know they get that big. Im from Oklahoma and if i go out at night, i hear a ton of coyotes, i havent seen one yet. Thank God i do not have wolves in my area. I dont know what i would do if i ran into one in the woods, besides wet myself.....lol

MOshooter65202
December 9, 2011, 01:05 PM
LOL I hear ya Indi...I have no idea how big that guy is???
But that is one Huge Wolf :eek: I sure hope those Wolves don't make their way to Missouri,if so I will be lookin' for a larger bore rifle :eek: LOL

RockRiverWhisper
December 9, 2011, 01:34 PM
Shot coyotes for years day and night. Never saw a wolf in MS. That's a big dog.

silvrjeepr
December 9, 2011, 02:09 PM
Never seen a wolf in MS either. I'm glad of that.

hogdogs
December 9, 2011, 02:09 PM
If you want a first hand idea of the size and strength potential of a wolf, go visit a farm with working Great Pyrenees livestock guard dogs...

They are one of the closest relatives to a wolf. Double dew claws and all...
My father's pet gyp weighs 100#+ and is in no way overweight. The males are significantly heavier going upwards of 130#...
Stretched out for "hugs", her front legs drape over my dad's shoulders and he is 6' even.

A wolf would be a handful for any man even if he has his awares and fortitude to square off with it.

A coyote... I would take him on face to face in a heart beat with out a man made weapon.

Brent

IdahoHombre
December 9, 2011, 03:37 PM
Wolves are not easy to hunt. They're pretty elusive, and difficult to call in. Much easier to go out and trick a few coyotes into range. Fish & Game is disgusted enough with the poor wolf harvest numbers, that they're going to start helicopter gunning them down (once we get some snow)!

shortwave
December 9, 2011, 03:39 PM
My shephard, which was Czech and West German bloodlines, weighed 134#'s. Which is considered large for a shephard by US butchered standards but a bit small in Czech or West Germany. He was long with a big head and long snout.
I know his strength,stamina and have seen him in action several times. Hard to handle.
Couldn't imagine fending off a wolf bare-handed, let alone a pack of wolves.

IdahoHombre
December 9, 2011, 03:41 PM
I wouldn't want to face a wolf in the wild either no matter how big it is. But the truth is, most of the wolves harvested have weighed less than 100# (here in Idaho).

Hunter Customs
December 9, 2011, 06:16 PM
deepforks, thanks for the info on the license and tag fees, I sure would like to head out there to hunt some of those big brutes.

Thanks to everyone that posted pictures, I really enjoyed looking at them.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter

tahunua001
December 9, 2011, 08:10 PM
Fish & Game is disgusted enough with the poor wolf harvest numbers, that they're going to start helicopter gunning them down (once we get some snow)!
amen to that...these are the only species that I would condone exterminating.:mad:

warbirdlover
December 9, 2011, 09:08 PM
We had a cougar on our leased hunting land this November all week. One guy had a close encounter walking to his stand in the dark.

I didn't think anyone saw any wolves this year but one of the guys said one was howling very close to his blind.

Double Naught Spy
December 9, 2011, 09:09 PM
ugh here we go again...these things were not reintroduced...they were introduced.

the indigenous wolves of idaho were red wolves...little larger than that coyote but a damn bit smaller than that wolf and they weren't pack hunters and had a higher mortality rate because they were not acclimatized to a harsher environment.

Um, no. There are no historic records of Red Wolf (Canis niger) in Idaho. This is per Hall and Kelson's Mammals of North America which is a compendium of traits, documented ranges, and marginal records as well.

If you don't have Hall and Kelson, see here... http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3747/0
This site has some revised information on the Red Wolf's historic ranges that are now shown to go up from Gulf states region up through Pennsylvania and up into extreme eastern Canada via the fossil record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf#Fossil_and_historic_record

You are right in that there is overlap in size between the Red Wolf and the Coyote, but there is absolutely no historic or fossil evidence for the Red Wolf in Idaho.

The wolf indigenous to Idaho was indeed the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus). The re-indroduced variety is a subspecies (Canis lupus occidentalis) that was not in Idaho, but at the species level, it is a Gray wolf. Idaho's predominant subspecies was Canis lupus irremotus, recently combined as Canis lupus nublilus.

IDAHO83501
December 9, 2011, 09:41 PM
See them shoot them,,,These wolves have ruined Elk hunting in Idaho,,,Washington and Oregon hunters take note. Be pro-active on this issue,,,if you see one shoot it,,tell nobody...These evil dogs will ruin your hunting too...It won't happen overnight,,it will happen though...The warm and fuzzy crowd be damned,,,these animals are 100% evil,,a land shark.

(*_*)
December 9, 2011, 10:22 PM
Why would anybody want more of the big scarey looking one roaming about? The people who put them there should have to go camp with them.

Double Naught Spy
December 9, 2011, 11:07 PM
Be pro-active on this issue,,,if you see one shoot it,,tell nobody.

What you are advocating is poaching, an illegal activity that can result in some hefty fines, possible permanent loss of hunting priviledges, and possible jail time.

With that said, however, there are parts of the state that have no bag limit for wolves, but require all areas require wolf tags. In the no limit parts of the state, the wolf season is 7-10 months long.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/hunt/?getPage=121

warbirdlover
December 9, 2011, 11:36 PM
Why would anybody want more of the big scarey looking one roaming about? The people who put them there should have to go camp with them.

I agree. Unarmed, overnight in a tent with their wife and kids....

Alaska444
December 10, 2011, 12:05 AM
Dear DNS, not that I have ever disagreed with any of your posts, but I believe you are in error about the native Idaho wolf vs the Canadian wolf. Here is an article on the native vs the invasive Mackenzie Valley wolf:

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/01/21/native-rocky-mountain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/

My friends that grew up here in Idaho and have lived here for over 70 years also disagree that the Canadian gray wolf is native to this area. They don't read many fancy books, they do read, but they lived and watched the native wolf that did not bother their livestock. You cannot make the same claims about these monster Canadian wolves that are wiping out the elk herds here in northern Idaho.

This truly is an invasive and dangerous species that is also spreading parasitic disease that is a known danger to people. All of this information was available to our govn't before they ever placed one of these interlopers in the lower 48.

hogdogs
December 10, 2011, 12:28 AM
I cannot profess to condone a behavior that may jeopardize a man's 2A or voting rights...

Brent

IdahoHombre
December 10, 2011, 01:51 AM
Well, I wish we could get some solid answers on the original wolves in Idaho, which ones have been introduced, etc.

Just had an old timer up near St. Maries tell me that all of the wolves in his neck of the woods have naturally relocated over from Minn./Wisconsin, and are that brand of timberwolf.

Never heard that before.

I almost wonder if our IF&G biologists know all the answers. I'll get to the bottom of it, but, gez, it may take a long time to get an authoritative answer.

I don't know.

warbirdlover
December 10, 2011, 05:48 AM
All I can contribute is that the wolves in Wisconsin are killing cattle and deer and who knows what else. Now as far as the cougar we had on our land the whole week of gun deer season, I can't say..... :rolleyes:

Double Naught Spy
December 10, 2011, 08:46 AM
Dear DNS, not that I have ever disagreed with any of your posts, but I believe you are in error about the native Idaho wolf vs the Canadian wolf. Here is an article on the native vs the invasive Mackenzie Valley wolf:

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/...n-gray-wolves/

My friends that grew up here in Idaho and have lived here for over 70 years also disagree that the Canadian gray wolf is native to this area. They don't read many fancy books, they do read, but they lived and watched the native wolf that did not bother their livestock.

Okay, so you are playing the curmudgeon card? The, "We're old and don't read no fancy books because we done lived it" card? I am sorry if my citation of relevant scientific information is troubling for you, but what we are discussing does come down to biology. What I stated does not cast any doubts on the long term observations of old timers. I am not even sure why you are trying to set up this dichotomy of conflict, but your deed is misplaced. You seem to want to challenge me on statements I didn't make and that just does not make any sense.

Where am I in error? Are you suggesting that the Canadian Wolf isn't actually a Gray Wolf or are you suggesting that the wolf native to Idaho isn't a Gray Wolf? They are both Gray Wolves, the same species.

Maybe you are suggesting that I stated that the Canadian Gray Wolf was indiginous? I did not state this.

You cannot make the same claims about these monster Canadian wolves that are wiping out the elk herds here in northern Idaho.

I did not make any such claims.

So specifically what did I state that was in error? The only claims that I made were that the Red Wolf was never in Idaho as the indigenous wolf species and that the indigenous species was the Gray Wolf and the predominant subspecies of Idaho Gray Wolf was different from the introduced Canadian subspecies.

Nothing in the blog you posted is contrary to statements I made. It does discuss differences between the wolves, but these are difference of subspecies members of the same species.

This truly is an invasive and dangerous species that is also spreading parasitic disease that is a known danger to people. All of this information was available to our govn't before they ever placed one of these interlopers in the lower 48.

I never commented one way or the other that the Canadian Gray Wolf was invasive or dangerous or what information the government did or did not have, but I think I have found your problem. You don't seem to have a working understanding between the differences of what constitutes a species versus what consitutes a subspecies and so are using the terminology incorrectly which is causing confusion for you. The Gray Wolf and Red Wolf are different species, but the native Idaho Gray Wolf and the Canadian Gray Wolf are the same species, but different subspecies (see my post above). So your statement that the introduced wolves are a truly invasive species isn't exactly correct because what was introduced wasn't a different species, but a different subspecies.

Truly invasive? That isn't exactly right. They were fairly well isolated (hence the subspecies designation) before we forced their invasion by transporting them to a new region. Now they are simply expanding to fill the void and right or wrong, this is what was hoped for via the relocation program. They are invasive, but only because we made it possible for them to do so. This is yet another example of humans trying to manage nature and failing to comprehend the consequences of the course nature will take.

Without geting into all the fancy distinctions, a species is a naturally interbreeding population. A subspecies is an isolated (usually by geography) sub group within a given population.

(*_*)
December 10, 2011, 02:51 PM
http://youtu.be/v_pdTLZOOvM

In russia, traffic cop encounters band of roving wolves and hops into stopped car.

Edit: http://youtu.be/U9-MrPQV_ho in parking lot eating someones grocery's. These look about 1/2 the size of the pictures in this thread.

comn-cents
December 10, 2011, 08:59 PM
"In russia, traffic cop encounters band of roving wolves and hops into stopped car"

fake video!

Double Naught Spy
December 11, 2011, 07:54 AM
Yep, both videos are faked. They were part of an ad campaign for Eristoff Vodka in Russia. Apparently the wolves are CGI or some such digital manipulation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s00HQm_rWpk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv4c3yd0nis

shortwave
December 11, 2011, 08:03 AM
Yep, both videos are fake.

That one with the Russian cop reminded me of the commercial we have here... and I forget the topic of the commercial but it shows two guys with meat strapped on their bodies taking off running and wolves being turned loose on them. Only one guy makes it back to the starting line. :D

Alaska444
December 11, 2011, 11:38 AM
Dear DNS, did you know that all dogs are the same species? Theoretically, you could breed a chiwawa with a great dane and have viable offspring. Yes, the wolf is a wolf is a wolf, but are all wolves the same? NO.

The critter that the Feds placed as an invasive wolf into Idaho and the west is the Mackenzie Valley wolf, the great dane of wolves. It is the largest, most aggressive wolf known in the Americas. It harbors Echinococcus found in 62% of all reintroduced wolves tested in one recent report. Look up Finland and their battle against the wolf why they consider this parasite one of the greatest public health hazards to their population.

There is little doubt that Idaho had a native wolf that was on the rebound after they stopped the poisoning program. It behaved differently than the huge Mackenzie Valley wolf, was not as small and didn't harm livestock and was afraid of people. Not so with the new monster wolf in Idaho today giving to us by special present from the Feds. In addition, I never claimed it was a red wolf.

So, are all housecats the same? Are all dogs the same? No. Within a single species, you can find great variety. Did you know that you can breed a wolf or coyote with a dog and have viable offspring? Did you know that people come in great variety? All the same species my friend, but who will state that there are not consistent medically important differences among the different races? That is a subject of many of the medical studies on how the different races handle different medicines.

No the Canadian, Mackenzie Valley wolf is NOT the same as the native Idaho wolf. It is an interloper running ruin of the Idaho eco-system. If you believe that they are the same wolf, then I suppose a chiwawa is really a great dane in disguise.

Buzzcook
December 11, 2011, 03:50 PM
I wouldn't want to face a wolf in the wild either no matter how big it is. But the truth is, most of the wolves harvested have weighed less than 100# (here in Idaho).

No they're monster huge giant wolves. The great Dane, Mastiff, Pit Bull of wolves.
"It's got sharp nasty pointy teeth"

Double Naught Spy
December 11, 2011, 04:46 PM
Dear DNS, did you know that all dogs are the same species? Theoretically, you could breed a chiwawa with a great dane and have viable offspring. Yes, the wolf is a wolf is a wolf, but are all wolves the same? NO.

You start out by saying I am in error in my post and then go through and argue with me over points I never made. When I ask you where I was in error, you continue to argue with me over points I have not made without answering my query for you to point out where I was wrong.

I realize that you are just trying to save face over your original obvious gaff, but in continuing to do so, you are just embarrassing yourself.

I know you find this really hard to believe and it causes you discomfort, but you are in agreement with me that the native species of Idaho wolf and the government introduced version are the same species but different subspecies. You can't change this by stating I am in error or by posing provocative questions and throwing out subspecies trait differences. You cited Tim Kemery's stuff and he is also in agreement that they are the same species, but different subspecies.

I know you are trying really hard to make a point about the validity of my statements, but you haven't actually offered any sort of valid counter information, just a lot of posturing.

MLeake
December 11, 2011, 05:12 PM
DNS, you guys are now effectively playing semantic games.

My Jack Russell is a different subspecies from, but same species as, my friend's 110lb Doberman.

Subspecies differences can be significant in size, temperament, and potential threat level.

Double Naught Spy
December 11, 2011, 05:35 PM
I wouldn't want to face a wolf in the wild either no matter how big it is. But the truth is, most of the wolves harvested have weighed less than 100# (here in Idaho).

No they're monster huge giant wolves. The great Dane, Mastiff, Pit Bull of wolves.
"It's got sharp nasty pointy teeth"

From a 2010 hunt, the average female weighed 86 lbs. and the average male weighed 101 lbs, so sure enough, less than 100 lbs. on average.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2010/02/18/update-on-the-weight-of-wolves-shot-in-idaho-hunt/
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/

From 2011, just a few days ago, this article notes the preponderance of giant looking wolves that turn out on average to weigh just 105 lbs.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/state-considering-ways-to-fill-quota-for-wolf-hunt/article_84eacbc4-1f76-11e1-9c50-0019bb2963f4.html

People are apparently way overestimating wolf weights based on a visual assessment of size that is greatly influenced by a heavy coat of 2-4" hair.

MLeake
December 11, 2011, 05:40 PM
An average male weight of 101lbs puts them into the same size category as very large German Shepherds; Akitas; Rhodesian Ridgebacks; etc.

So, not epically large, but... At any given weight, they will probably have more overall muscle, and more biting force - because they need it on a daily basis.

And they work in teams.

With as many forum members as we have who are deathly afraid of an unknown, approaching, 50lb class mutt... it isn't unreasonable to expect may of them to fear 100+lb creatures that bite harder and apply very effective group tactics if they attack.

Again, DNS, you seem to want to word-game this to death. You can win all you want on definitions, but by doing so you aren't really addressing issues.

Double Naught Spy
December 11, 2011, 05:59 PM
MLeake, what issues am I not addressing that you think I need to be addressing? I simply made a clarification statement of fact that was countered with a bunch of random insights that weren't actually contrary to anything I had stated.

MLeake
December 11, 2011, 06:06 PM
DNS, by arguing subspecies vs species ad nauseam, you don't address the argument that the hunting behaviors of the Canadian Grey are significantly different from the behaviors that had been exhibited by the Idaho, and to the detriment of the Idaho ecosystem.

By arguing about whether 101lb male average does or does not constitute a "monster" size, you don't address the argument that these are large, apex predators, easily capable of (and apparently eager for) wiping out the local elk; and, for that matter, easily capable of taking down even an adult human (though they don't seem to show much propensity for that, as yet).

Without addressing those arguments, which are what the folks who live near them actually seem to care about, it doesn't matter whether you win on semantics and definitions. This isn't a formal Lincoln-Douglas debate, and the tricks they taught in high school and college debate don't really work in this venue.

Alaska444
December 11, 2011, 06:15 PM
Today, 01:46 PM #50
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member

Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 8,250
Quote:
Dear DNS, did you know that all dogs are the same species? Theoretically, you could breed a chiwawa with a great dane and have viable offspring. Yes, the wolf is a wolf is a wolf, but are all wolves the same? NO.
You start out by saying I am in error in my post and then go through and argue with me over points I never made. When I ask you where I was in error, you continue to argue with me over points I have not made without answering my query for you to point out where I was wrong.

I realize that you are just trying to save face over your original obvious gaff, but in continuing to do so, you are just embarrassing yourself.

I know you find this really hard to believe and it causes you discomfort, but you are in agreement with me that the native species of Idaho wolf and the government introduced version are the same species but different subspecies. You can't change this by stating I am in error or by posing provocative questions and throwing out subspecies trait differences. You cited Tim Kemery's stuff and he is also in agreement that they are the same species, but different subspecies.

I know you are trying really hard to make a point about the validity of my statements, but you haven't actually offered any sort of valid counter information, just a lot of posturing.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Last edited by Double Naught Spy; Today at 02:23 PM.

Oh my, I could really care less if you or anyone else in this world "embassess" me. Get real man, I have made plenty of mistakes in this life and it is to God alone that I must answer. But in any case, you lost me on that comment since you have done nothing in reply to embassess me nor did I mistate anything in my original post.

I guess I will just go with the flow. Yes, you are so right, a gray wolf is a gray wolf is a gray wolf. There is nothing different at all about the native Idaho wolf and the Mackenzie Valley wolf. You are right your honor. Geeze, I am feeling so embarrassed right now after all. Shucks, I better go hide my face. How could I be so wrong about the reintroduced wolf eating up all of the game animals in Idaho right now and killing the livestock. Shucks, it must just be the same little innocent critter we used to have here in the past. I better just go along with the Feds since they are so much smarter than I am.

Double Naught Spy
December 11, 2011, 08:09 PM
DNS, by arguing subspecies vs species ad nauseam, you don't address the argument that the hunting behaviors of the Canadian Grey are significantly different from the behaviors that had been exhibited by the Idaho, and to the detriment of the Idaho ecosystem.

It was never my attempt to argue anything about their hunting behaviors one way or the other. I was simply pointing out that the Red Wolf was never there and that the variety brought in from Canada was in fact the same species as the indigenous species, but were different subspecies, but A444 wanted to argue with me for some reason that I don't fully understand since his arguments weren't actually contrary to what I had stated.

Is it a semantic issue? Sure. The basis of biological phylogeny depends on semantics. At the same time, A444 is correctly noting vastly different behaviors in the two subspecies. This is also very semantic and a case where semantics are critical to the arguments of why locals don't like the wolves that have been brought in from Canada. They are different and part of this difference is specifically noted in their subspecies designation differences. The wolves that were brought in were fairly localized and isolated population with their own unique attributes until they were brought south.

So this notion of subspecies not addressing the issue of their behavioral differences isn't exactly right. If A444 wasn't so caught up in wanting to tell me that my information was wrong, then he would have understood that what I was saying was particularly germaine to his rantings. It is because they are different subspecies with seriously divergent lifeways that there is an issue. Their behavior differences were documented before anyone thought about transplanting them. I am not really sure why anyone thought that the transplant would be a good idea given these differences. This really wasn't ever an issue that I had intended to discuss. I was just trying to clarify exactly who the players were in this case as there seemed to be some confusion about who they were. It wasn't that the government was trying to replace indigenous Red Wolves with Gray Wolves from Canada given that Red Wolves were never in Idaho. So it was NOT that they were replacing one species with another. The species wasn't being changed. It was that they were bringing in a different subspeies of Gray Wolf.

So yeah, semantics really do matter when you are dealing with things like species and subspecies. It was apparently those who brought in the wolves for which semantics didn't seem to matter too much. As A444 said in his sarcastic faux capitulation, a gray wolf is a gray wolf. Somebody in the program apparently thought that, but it was not something I ever stated.

By arguing about whether 101lb male average does or does not constitute a "monster" size, you don't address the argument that these are large, apex predators, easily capable of (and apparently eager for) wiping out the local elk; and, for that matter, easily capable of taking down even an adult human (though they don't seem to show much propensity for that, as yet).

Okay, now you are doing it as well. I didn't aruge anything about what does or does not constitute being a monster. I was just providing relevant data and sources that built on what IdahoHombre had stated since he didn't provide any sources for his weight statement and I was curious if it was accurate. It was fairly accurate and there were two years worth of data. What is with you guys?

Alaska444
December 11, 2011, 09:23 PM
Dear DNS, is the transplanted Mackenzie Valley wolf close enough genetically to not disrupt the Idaho ecosystem as compared to the native Idaho wolf?

Art Eatman
December 11, 2011, 09:28 PM
Hey, take it to email or PM and save me having to deal with gripes. :)