PDA

View Full Version : End of Elk Hunting in the Big Horns Mtns, Wyoming


kraigwy
December 15, 2011, 11:47 PM
Circle Park, Big Horn Mountains, WY

http://photos.imageevent.com/kraigwy/buffalo/websize/Wolves%20in%20the%20Big%20Horns.jpg

Alaska444
December 15, 2011, 11:59 PM
Nahhh, they are just quite little furry critters that need our protection. They need to eat too you know. Well, that is the Eco wacko nut job interpretation of this picture.

Wow, I counted 25 of those suckers all waiting to go on the kill. I need to bring more ammo with me out in the woods!!!

jimmythegeek
December 16, 2011, 12:09 AM
Must have been rough! You have such tender hearts :D

wyome
December 16, 2011, 12:13 AM
wow...i don't remember seeing that many all at once when I used to live/hunt in that area in the 90s.

kraigwy
December 16, 2011, 12:24 AM
However did those poor elk manage without human bodyguards?

These arn't native to Wyoming, idiot humans imported them.

[quote]wow...i don't remember seeing that many all at once when I used to live/hunt in that area in the 90s. [quote]

They weren't here in the 90s. They were imported from Canada, put in Yellowstone and they migrated to the Big Horns after destroying the elk herds in the NW part of the state.

nate45
December 16, 2011, 12:32 AM
Wolves once roamed the contiguous United States.

There are thousands and thousands of them in Alaska and Canada. They haven't wiped out the Elk, Moose, Caribou, etc there.

Alaska444
December 16, 2011, 12:39 AM
There is a reason that Alaska pays folks to keep them to a minimum impact on the game animals.

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/6236

Unless of course you want one for a pet:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_Mackenzie_valley_wolf_make_a_good_pet

wyome
December 16, 2011, 12:51 AM
they reintroduced them back into yellowstone in '95. Remember quite a fuss from the local ranchers about it. When I left in '97 they weren't a nuisance yet, and there were very few reports of them hunting outside the park.

Once their populations got healthy look out...

jimmythegeek
December 16, 2011, 01:07 AM
There's a picture of Wyoming cowboys who've roped a gray wolf, dated 1897.

mquail
December 16, 2011, 09:28 AM
The photo is real and was taken by Chadden Hunter in Canada's Wood Buffalo National Park

http://www.wildlifeartjournal.com/blog/341/wolf-pack-train.html

Will Lee
December 16, 2011, 11:19 AM
These arn't native to Wyoming, idiot humans imported them.

Sorry kraigwy, but wolves are indigenous to Wyoming and were eradicated by the 1930s. The first records of wolves being sited in the mountain region of Wyoming was in the early 1800s. Archeological evidence indicates that the wolf has roamed throughout most of the Northern US and Canada for thousands of years.

kraigwy
December 16, 2011, 11:36 AM
Will Lee, the wolves imported to the Mountain west are a different breed that lived here in the past. These canadian imports are not the same.

MQuail, thanks for posting that link. I recieved the picture in an e-mail. I hope these wolves don't become a problem in the Big Horns, but I know I'm hoping in vain. They have been seen, not in the packs pictured, but they are showing up.

The Big Horns are my favorite place on earth, and I've seen some nice places (spent 22 years all over Alaska).

They've even started showing up in th Black Hills.

nate45
December 16, 2011, 11:43 AM
Kraig, they're Gray Wolves (Canis Lupus) right?

Thats the same wolf species that once ranged the entire US.

hogdogs
December 16, 2011, 12:07 PM
We moved the wolf from where we wanted to inhabit.
With habitation comes the need to for us to manipulate wild animal populations to suit our needs.

I am pretty sure that the elk populations are not what they were in the early 1800's before man moved into their territory.

Thusly, we do not need too many wolves to be the natural population controller.

With man moving in, came the livestock demands to support the humans. We do not need farmers feeding the wolves.

We eliminated the wolves for good reason (some fear based killin' occurred to be sure) for the most part and it worked fine for long enuff to convince me that wolf reintroduction was not needed at least and a very bad idea at worst....

Brent

mquail
December 16, 2011, 12:08 PM
MQuail, thanks for posting that link. I recieved the picture in an e-mail. I hope these wolves don't become a problem in the Big Horns, but I know I'm hoping in vain. They have been seen, not in the packs pictured, but they are showing up.

The Big Horns are my favorite place on earth, and I've seen some nice places (spent 22 years all over Alaska).

They've even started showing up in th Black Hills.


I live in the NE SD. They are here. I saw one not far from Summit SD about 10yrs ago. I think 2 have been shot in the last 10 yrs in East River (east of the Mo River)

Art Eatman
December 16, 2011, 12:37 PM
WRT historical populations of gray wolves: 200 years back there was a lot more lightly-populated territory in the western US. Aside from the bison, the early European travelers commented on the numbers of deer, elk and antelope.

So, we changed all manner of balances of various populations, both animal and human. Absent livestock, there are fewer animals to support a large population of predators--whether it be bears, wolves or cougars.

Seems to me that it won't take all that many wolves to have a population whose demand for food strongly degrades the available supply. IOW, there is a serious need for control of their numbers.

Obviously, some folks feel that "zero" is an appropriate number. :D

Another "numbers" problem, I guess, would be that of coyotes. As the wolf population declined, the coyote population increased because of reduced competition for food. We still have this larger population of coyotes, and now we add wolves into the equation.

IdahoHombre
December 16, 2011, 12:50 PM
I suspect that elk herds are actually better than what they were in the 1800's in Idaho. It just all depends on where you're talking about. Much more of the land in that day was forested, and since then wildfires, timber harvests, agricultural expansions, etc. all improved elk habitat. Elk have increased in population greatly since then.

Idaho had a bounty on wolves early in the 20th Century after they had become an infestation in the state. By the '30's, there weren't any more wolves to turn in for the bounty. As far as I can tell, there wasn't much killing out of "fear." Level headed ranchers were the ones seeing their sheep and cattle go for the dog food, and they put their money where their mouth was - they paid for the wolf bounties.

Hmmm... wolf bounties and ranching organizations paying for them... sounds more effective than taxpayers getting the tab for aerial gunnings. I'm for the wolf gone either way. Just an idea...

nate45
December 16, 2011, 12:54 PM
Shooting coyotes is fun, wolves would be too. You're a sniper Kraig, go out there and pick some off. Wolves aren't an endangered species and WY has a Wolf management plan (http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/wolfplan2011/2011-09-14_FinalApprovedWolfMgmtPlan.pdf).

Alaska444
December 16, 2011, 01:29 PM
There are several wolf subspecies even among the north American gray wolf.

http://www.cosmosmith.com/wolf_classification.html

It seems that our Federal govn't went out of its way to get the biggest and most aggressive subspecies that is out of place here in the Rockies. They are known to even kill grizzly bears in a similar manner to the way some Indians allegedly hunted deer by running them down over a couple day period of time until the deer are too exhausted to run any further. Wolves have been documented killing grizzly bears in a similar manner.

In addition, the Scandanavian nations have sought to eradicate wolves because of the severe public health problem caused by the parasite that they carry. In Idaho, 62% of wolves examined were infested as well with a parasite that is deadly to people. The Russians also spent decades trying to eradicate this parasite with little success. Now the Feds have introduced this invasive wolf subspecies carrying a truly invasive parasite. They propagate the false information that the wolf is good for the ecosystem when in fact, they are ravaging the northern Rockies with little to hope that they will ever be controlled anytime soon.

kraigwy
December 16, 2011, 01:43 PM
Did the feds sign off on that plan?? I certainly hope so. Last I heard Wyoming was left out of the Wolf Management.

kraigwy
December 16, 2011, 01:46 PM
Seems the only people who want wolves in the Northern Rockies is the people who don't live in the Norther Rockies.

nate45
December 16, 2011, 01:50 PM
Did the feds sign off on that plan??

I guess, I got that off of the Wyoming Game & Fish (http://gf.state.wy.us/) web site, Wolf Management is the top link.

Alaska444
December 16, 2011, 02:13 PM
Today, 10:46 AM #21
kraigwy
Senior Member

Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 6,124
Seems the only people who want wolves in the Northern Rockies is the people who don't live in the Norther Rockies.


+1 Kraig. No one up in Northern Idaho wants those critters there for sure, except the Feds.

sirgilligan
December 16, 2011, 02:30 PM
I hunted in Wyoming this year. My family that lives there recommended certain areas to avoid because of the Grizzly. The Grizzly is more aggressive because of the wolves pushing the elk (and other prey) into more populated areas. Now the elk are down amongst the cattle and Wyoming is not a "bangs free" state anymore.

Federal laws over reach. People in the city in Southern California or Florida (just two states picked for an example) are often out of touch with nature, the balance, and the brutality of it.

I think that everyone in the Rocky Mountain West should put aside their "mind your own business" attitude in 2012 and push for legislation to protect wasps, skunks, termites, starlings, hornets, mosquitoes, stray dogs, stray cats, rabbits, rats, mice, and all types of snakes and reptiles. After we get the legislation in place then we should all take turns "re-introducing" animals into cities of our choice! Didn't there used to be jaguars in California?

Sorry, I am being a smart alec, but I am trying to point out the disconnect and over reach that causes such things.

tahunua001
December 16, 2011, 02:31 PM
and people wonder why idaho is recruiting alaskan trapping experts to actually teach outdoorsmen how to track, trap and hunt these things...they're out there make no mistake. and people also wonder why the elk populations dropped from 17,000 to 2000.

and I cant believe the level of ignorance here. the indigenious wolves of the contiguous US are red wolves. lone hunters, high infant mortality rates, a good 30-50 pounds lighter than gray wolves and they didn't carry disease. they were little more than coyotes.

these are canadian gray wolves. they are adapted to harsher environments than montana, idaho and wyoming so they hunt in packs to take down larger game, they have a non-existant mortality rate for the pups and they are huge. they have adapted to hunt regardless of whether they are hungry or not because they may not see another herd for a long time. they will kill entire herds of elk without eating a single bite on many of them simply becasue they can. pictures of the old timers with wolves are pictures of red wolves, not gray wolves. if they weren't in black and white then maybe some people could open their eyes to the stupidity that was the introduction of gray wolves to the US.

the reason gray wolves aren't out of control in alaska and canada is the same reason that wild pigs aren't out of control in africa, it's their natural habitat, not yellowstone, not the lewis-clark valley, not the bitter roots or the big horns.

Alaska444
December 16, 2011, 02:34 PM
Today, 11:30 AM #24
sirgilligan
Senior Member

Join Date: October 28, 2009
Location: Utah/Kentucky
Posts: 138
I hunted in Wyoming this year. My family that lives there recommended certain areas to avoid because of the Grizzly. The Grizzly is more aggressive because of the wolves pushing the elk (and other prey) into more populated areas. Now the elk are down amongst the cattle and Wyoming is not a "bangs free" state anymore.

I hadn't put together the grizzly aggressiveness and the wolf population increase, but I think you have made a valid point. Bears may be more on edge finding food and being aware of attack from wolves themselves. Great point sirgilligan.

tahunua001
December 16, 2011, 03:05 PM
+1 these last couple years has shown a huge increase in bear attacks despite decreased numbers of people venturing into the wild

sirgilligan
December 16, 2011, 03:33 PM
Bears may be more on edge finding food and being aware of attack from wolves themselves.

Thanks, but I am just reporting what was told by those that have lived there, their family has been there over 100 years now. They know the area, the dangers, the animal populations, the interaction with their cattle herds, all of it.

The main point is that unless you talk to those that deal with it every day and put behind you the stereotype of a rancher being a big dumb brute and realize that ranchers are mechanics, veterinarians, soil conservationists, workers with chemicals, genetics, and a plethora of other sciences and fields of study and take them for their word things would not be where they are now. When they tell me it is too dangerous, I believe them. When the tell me why, and when it started, and how they witnessed the situation progress it all makes sense.

Yes, I am a simple software engineer with a graduate degree in Physical and Mathematical Sciences, but that doesn't make me smart. I grew up on a dairy farm. I treated sick calves, I poured cement, I built buildings, I repaired machinery, and I know, from first hand experience, that farmer, rancher, or computer scientist, people are smart through work and effort and experience. Poor speaking skills or writing skills doesn't make one stupid.

I wonder why it seems, and it does seem so, that people think ranchers and their ilk are stupid. My rule is that if someone thinks someone else is stupid then they are arrogant. I have met very few stupid people. Plenty of ignorant ones, but few stupid ones.

I don't know why I went down this particular rat hole. Sorry.

Local Wyoming ranchers have told me personally that the Grizzly bear is more aggressive since the wolves pushed the food supply into more populated areas. The elk then brought disease to the cattle. It is all connected.

hooligan1
December 16, 2011, 04:07 PM
They march straighter than some of those REP 63's I trained in the Guard, Captain. They will probablty have to be hunted annually to keep their numbers down, and if the authorities get it right, the state will profit from a good program of season limits and so forth. And that helps the economy at the local level.:)

HiBC
December 16, 2011, 04:22 PM
All you have to do is watch the movie "Cry Wolf".That movie is proof wolves subsist entirely on mice and are nothing to worry about.:-)

I had one elk season in the Flat Tops in Colorado.I missed the next hunt,but two brothers and a friend went back.

All spent a lot of years outdoors in Colorado,all know what a coyote is.One spent his young life living in Alaska,and served on the military there.He knows what wolves are.One of my brothers on this hunt spent his career in SOCOM,and was an A team Commander for many years.

These folks are not prone to sensationalize seeing some coyotes.

They heard wolves,wolve left tracks through camp while they were hunting,and the elk had moved on.

They told DOW,and they said,"No,no wolves in the Flat Tops".Later,they changed their mind,and said there are wolves in the Flat Tops.

Huntergirl,who posted here,encountered wolves in Wyo.I consider her quite credible.

Doggone,I have been on the verge of ordering a Lipsey Special Ruger with Bisley grips....

But that pic is enough to make me think double stack 10 mm,maybe a fusion 1911 kit!!

cornbush
December 16, 2011, 06:11 PM
Wolves have expanded alot, they are now about 50 miles outside of Salt Lake City.
I'm all for wolves.......skinned and tanned!
We had a growing number around Bear Lake in south eastern Idaho when I lived there, and you could definitely notice the change in numbers of the rest of the critters around.
Seems the only people who want wolves in the Northern Rockies is the people who don't live in the Norther Rockies.
I whole heartedly agree, maybe we should release a few dozen around Washington DC and see how harmless they are...........:D

Tuzo
December 16, 2011, 11:19 PM
" . . . why the elk populations dropped from 17,000 to 2000." In Idaho for 1988 to 2010.

This is true for the Lolo Zone and somewhat true for the Sawtooth Zone. Depletion of elk herds in both zones is primarily due to wolf predation and to periods of harsh weather. Other Idaho elk zones seem to be holding their elk populations at reasonable levels.

Very interesting read - http://greateryellowstone.org/uploads/Idaho_FG.pdf

Pond, James Pond
December 17, 2011, 03:13 AM
I am not a Zoologist, but I find Zoology interesting.

In principle, I find humanity's constant ability to wipe stuff out, not simply accommodate somewhat depressing.

Still,I do not know the ins and outs of this situation, nor to I have a definitive answer to whether this species ever roamed these areas. So I will leave my own views there for now.

I would like an honest answer though. Do those people who are against this species living in the wild and doing what evolution designed it to do resent it because it is no longer doing what it should be in nature, or because it means they get fewer elk to shoot?

Flame if you will, but I actually just want an honest answer from people.

Alaska444
December 17, 2011, 03:53 AM
As in any invasive species, they are out of place and not doing what "evolution" meant them to do in that ecosystem. A healthy ecosystem has checks and balances for the prey and predators. This is technically an invasive subspecies that is the most aggressive and largest of all the extant wolves. It is also a cruel killing machine that often kills and doesn't bother to eat the kill. Grizzly bears, black bears and mountain lions only kill what they can eat. Not so with this invasive beast. Take a look at the following link to see why ranchers want to rid the land of these beasts. (Not for the faint of heart)

http://washingtonwolf.info/livestock_attacks.html

"Evolution" placed this beast in the northern, subarctic and Arctic regions where caribou have a much better chance of survival in huge numbers than elk, deer and even mountain lions, grizzly bears and black bears who are no longer the highest on the food chain the northern Rockies. They are out of place. This is not an experiment that nature produced but man instead. It is one more in a long line of ill fated interventions in nature by man.

Lastly, look up the history of wolves in Russia and Finland and you will see the battle waged against these beast that are not only deadly in their own right, but also carry a deadly parasite that infects all the creatures in the woods that contaminate themselves in the ever present wolf scat. Humans can bring them home on the bottom of their shoes where people become infected with a parasite that can form huge cysts throughout the body. Treatment for these parasites are less than adequate and they kill many people in Russia and Finland.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/02/07/synopsis-of-wolf-borne-hydatid-disease/

Worst of all, the Feds knew all of this information about this subspecies BEFORE they introduced them to a perfectly functioning ecosystem. It is no longer in balance. Wolves are known to eat every game animal in an area until they starve themselves to death unlike most other predators. One wolf will kill up to 50 elk every year. Do the math on how many wolves it takes to wipe out an entire ungulate population.

Most folks truly have never heard the whole story about wolves and why the folks out west hate them with a passion. We did a good thing banishing them to the far reaches of the northern territories nearly a century ago and ridding populated areas of this beast. We are simply foolish to place people, livestock and game animals at risk from this invasive species. The people in Russia and Finland are befuddled by this unique experiment which makes no sense to them. For any one that digs deep into this controversy, I suspect it won't make any sense to them either.

Pond, James Pond
December 17, 2011, 08:14 AM
Well, firstly, there are many animals that may hunt and kill for what we may see as just pleasure, or leaving most of the carcass untouched. It is may be means of pack cohesion reinforcement or social structuring. Grizzlies will kill a salmon, just to eat a few grams of roe, killer whales kill a humpback, just to eat the tongue, and cute dolphins do kill for the fun of it, at face value.
Humans do the same: we sometimes kill for a trophy, a tusk or a skin and leave the rest. Humans at least have a moral self awareness allowing us to decide if it is right or wrong.

My point is that this behaviour would not take place if it did not serve some purpose, even if it is not nutritional. Wolves, being fairly intelligent simply would not expend that energy, nor put themselves are risk of physical harm for no benefit at all...
So my guess is they do this for a reason, not because they are inherently "evil".
I have not looked at the link relating to wolf kills. Any animal killed by a predator and not eaten whole, instantaneously is not a pretty sight, not just those by wolves.
The difference with livestock is people attribute a financial value: its not that the wolf kills, its that it affects someone's paycheck.
My point here is that an animal's means of killing can't be used as a legitimate reason to wipe it out again.

I understand that you say that this species is invasive.
I will refrain from judging that one way or the other as other members seem equally sure that it was a native species at sometime in the past. I simply don't know enough about this species to judge.

You also rightly say that human intervention is often cock-eyed and meddlesome, but that statement is even more true of the unfettered eradications and extinctions that then make reintroductions a necessary consideration later.

With respect to disease, wolves are not the only vectors of parasites and disease in the wild. Indeed, this is a potent means of control for any number of species in the wild. There are lots of animal carriers.
Ticks are worse in Scandinavia, or at least far more publicised as a threat than wolf poo. At least with the latter you can wipe your feet, or leave the shoes outside. Not so easy with Borealiosis, or Encephalitis.
Should we wipe out any and all carriers of disease or try and deseminate a viable treatment into their habitat? If not all, then why just wolves on this basis?

My general point in all of this is, if we leave the question of whether they are native or not out, as I don't know either way, all the other reasons could just as easily be pointed at other species than the wolf, yet they are not spoken of with such vehemence.
I'm left with the impression that many dislike either the effect on income (livestock) or the competition for game (hunting sports). That was why I was asking for people's honest views on their reasons against.

BTW, is there a reason you type evolution in inverted commas?

hogdogs
December 17, 2011, 08:29 AM
In a post above, I tried to address this, PJP.

If the humans hadn't wanted to take over the lands that are prime habitat for the ungulates and wolves, I wouldn't think highly of wolf killers. They serve a purpose when the rest of a population base has no other means of population control other than disease and lack of food. It is best to keep populations in check "mechanically" than to wait until over population puts severe suffering into the equation.

But man is in charge of the critters whether it be thru some religious book one believes or thru legislated powers.

Once we chose to move our pets, livestock, children and belongings into an area to live, we begin making the area suitable.

One thing man has the ability to do is to remove critters that may be thinkin' the man and his charges would fit on their menu or play time list of fun critters to play with.

Not only did we move west but we took over much of the land other critters once had access to.

So now you have fewer elk and other animals. More calving cows and children though.

Everything was fine since wolves were eradicated to a very low population... Some will even say that the original native subspecie was made extinct.

Now we have even MORE humans and FEWER other animals and they think it is smart to introduce a subspecie known as one of the largest to ever roam the face of the earth.

And rather than try this on a smaller scale to try it out using the Red Wolf who roamed up that way as his northern limits...

Brent

ZeroJunk
December 17, 2011, 08:37 AM
extinctions that then make reintroductions a necessary consideration later.

Why? Were the elk populations getting out of control?


Seems like a perfect example of the government fixing something.

JimPage
December 17, 2011, 09:06 AM
Seems to me that many government actions are predetermined solutions looking for a problem.

Pond, James Pond
December 17, 2011, 09:13 AM
Were the elk populations getting out of control?

Perhaps not in the case of elk population, but extinctions are happeining left right and centre and typically the result of carelessness or short-sightedness and sometimes the solutions are not as simple as a reintroduction.

Our attitude to how we interact with our environments (I won't call it manage as I believe that to be a fallacy) is historically nothing to be proud of and yet we continue in the same manner....

Pond, James Pond
December 17, 2011, 09:42 AM
@Hogdogs

I can see where you are coming from and to add to it I would firstly say that we are not in charge of the critters. We only think we are.

They and the systems they inhabit, the laws of nature and physics don't give two hoots for whatever our various writings may proclaim.
It just doesn't work that way.

However, your observation about the ratio and movement of Man and how these wolves interact with that movement is probably right. They do appear to be in direct competition.

Based on that it seems that the reason there are fewer elk is more a product of man's growing activities rather than those of wolves.
This reintroduction is simply exacerbating Man's own effects.

So, my view is that there is just as strong an arguement for changing our behaviours in this and other environments as there is an arguement against reintroducing wolves. Both actions would have beneficial effects on elk populations.

Needless to say, I can guess which comes in second place.

The questions that come to mind for me are:
What will happen to the elk populations if Man's expansion is such that they then become the nuisance species?
Will they, too, become candidates for eradication?
Or will they die out just because we clear their habitats of trees?

It is also worth noting that, arguably, livestock is probably more of an invasive species than the wolves...

Either way, thanks for helping to answer my question.

mapsjanhere
December 17, 2011, 09:43 AM
For those will all the skill points in self delusion, maybe read up on the facts. The grey wolf is the natural species for the Rockies and beyond, the red wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf) never extended much past the south eastern US. As for their reintroduction, all we're doing is maintaining a highly artificial zoo anyway. The dominant species are human and cattle, we're just assigning some spots for our preferred "wild" animals. Elk hunts like more elk, less wolf, people getting their food from the supermarket believe in "natural balance". It's just like balancing the budget without touching social security, medicare and defense spending; if you've reserved 98% of land for human use the rest is just pretending.

Double Naught Spy
December 17, 2011, 10:42 AM
mquail stated...
The photo is real and was taken by Chadden Hunter in Canada's Wood Buffalo National Park

http://www.wildlifeartjournal.com/bl...ack-train.html

So I am curious. How is it that the wolves in the OP image are any threat to elk in Wyoming some 1100 miles away? It would appear that the entire basis of this thread is centered around incorrect information - using a misattributed image of a large wolf pack that isn't even the same subspecies about which folks are complaining.

I am pretty sure that the elk populations are not what they were in the early 1800's before man moved into their territory.

In North America, 'man' has been in elk territory for at least the last 12,000 years or so. Those involved in the largely anglo-oriented 1800s Manifest Destiny were not the first humans into the elk territory and not even the first westerners there. Historically, elk had a near bi-coastal distribution and were encountered by early French and Spanish explorers in Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, and California (and probably in several other states as well). Many of these explorations were soon followed by settlements in elk territory well prior to the 1800s.

and I cant believe the level of ignorance here. the indigenious wolves of the contiguous US are red wolves. lone hunters, high infant mortality rates, a good 30-50 pounds lighter than gray wolves and they didn't carry disease. they were little more than coyotes.

Well that makes two of us given that your statement about red wolves is incorrect. Gray wolves are here naturally, entering the New World near the end of the Pleistocene along with a variety of other animals that are considered indigenous to North America. Red wolves never roamed the contiguous US, but were largely limited to the easter portion of the US and up into Canada. Red wolves are not special or magical in any way when it comes to disease. They suffer pretty much the full range of diseases common to many mammals and in particular to canids.

You are right in that red wolves are one of the smaller varieties and they often do hunting singly. This is because their primary prey are smaller animals such as rabbits and rodents. They also pair hunt and they will pack hunt, however, when trying to take larger prey such as deer.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/red-wolf-facts.html
http://library.fws.gov/Pubs4/endangered_red_wolves.pdf
http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/redwolf.htm

If by your what you said you are suggesting that gray wolves are not indigenous to the United States because they originated in the Old World and came to the New World at the end of the Pleistocene, hence the gray wolves don't belong here, then neither do the elk that are the focus of the OP. Elk also entered the New World along with Gray Wolves at the end of the Pleistocene.

pictures of the old timers with wolves are pictures of red wolves, not gray wolves. if they weren't in black and white then maybe some people could open their eyes to the stupidity that was the introduction of gray wolves to the US.

You know, there were a lot of biologists and naturalists documenting North American wildlife back at least as far as the 1700s and before photography, and there are no red wolf records from the western US, but there were plenty of gray wolves. See...
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/3747/0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf#Fossil_and_historic_record

Also see...
Hall and Kelson's Mammals of North America which is a compendium of traits, documented ranges, and marginal records as well.
http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-022-01-0001.pdf
http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-037-01-0001.pdf

Ricky
December 17, 2011, 11:27 AM
This past August my wife and I visited Yellowstone N.P.. We spent spent most of our time in the Lamar valley where we saw 4 or 5 wolves, 3 Grizzly bears as well as elk, antelope, coyote and a few thousand buffalo.
I don't at all think that this makes me an expert on the topic. I talked to a lot of people who visit the park quite often. Several people told me similar tales of a few years after the wolves were re-introduced to the park there were large, healthy packs of wolves and it seems that is wasn't uncommon to see wolves take down elk. The elk in the park didn't know how to deal with the wolves, they were fairly easy prey. Over time the elk have learned how to deal with the wolves and don't put themselves in the places where they are easy pickins. The wolves also have succumbed to mange and distemper, greatly decreasing their numbers. It has taken time but there seems that nature has balanced the animal population pretty well without people shooting the wolves.
The day before we arrived a spike elk was killed ( presumably by wolves or a grizzly bear ) on the bank of the Lamar river. We were able to see at least 2 grizzly bears and several wolves taking turns eating on the carcass for 4 days until the meat was gone. The bears eat when they want and the wolves wait their turn from maybe 20 yards away. I guess if there were enough wolves they might eat first but I don't think anything less than 6 wolves would mess with a grizzly. During our time there we didn't see more than 3 wolves in the same area. I was told there are now 2 small packs of wolves in and near the Lamar valley.

mquail
December 17, 2011, 11:55 AM
The wolves also have succumbed to mange and distemper, greatly decreasing their numbers. It has taken time but there seems that nature has balanced the animal population pretty well without people shooting the wolves.


http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_5d617195-fb0f-5ce5-bdf1-6e7dfdb4b11e.html

ZeroJunk
December 17, 2011, 12:49 PM
Interesting article mquail. I have seen dead foxes with mange around here. Not sure whether that is what killed them, and it doesn't seem to be wide spread.

I am not pro wolf by any stretch, but don't wish that stuff on anything.

arch308
December 17, 2011, 01:01 PM
I allways felt that the re-introduction of wolves was a bad idea thought up by people who don't live there and have no real concept of the reality of the situation. You know, PETA philes. If I lived up there I would shoot them on sight regardless of what Washington thought, just like the feral hogs down here. At least the pigs taste good!

mquail
December 17, 2011, 01:02 PM
Interesting article mquail. I have seen dead foxes with mange around here. Not sure whether that is what killed them, and it doesn't seem to be wide spread.

I am not pro wolf by any stretch, but don't wish that stuff on anything.

A friend of mine who works for the Govt origionally told me about the origin of mange. I didn't believe him! I do now.

When it comes to wolves I'm on the fence. I think they have a place as a big game animal in the US and can fill a niche in the wild. But we've changed things so much in the last couple of hundred years those niches that have been vacated were often filled by those critters that could such as the coyote or they don't exist now. Anyway I think the wolf is here to stay though how many is probably the most important question.

Ridgerunner665
December 17, 2011, 01:03 PM
The problem is.....they released the wolves in Yellowstone, but they didn't stay there. They were supposed to keep a close eye on the population, but they didn't!

Now there are wolves scattered from Oregon to Michigan...not so long ago I was one of those guys saying that a few wolves would be a good thing. But after seeing what they have done to the elk herds...I say


KILL EM ALL!...every last one of them! We no longer have room for them here...thats the difference between the lower 48 and Canada. Canada has LOTS, LOTS more wilderness than the US....they still have room for nature to take care of itself up there....down here we have taken too much land for farming and agriculture, that leaves no room for wolves.

kraigwy
December 17, 2011, 01:16 PM
Like Fast and Ferrous was a plan to institute gun control they couldn't get passed otherwise, I've convinced eliminating hunting was the main goal of introducing wolves.

Surely they knew how they would spread, and they would dessicate big game heads. You can't get laws passed to stop hunting, but if you could eliminate, or drastically reduce the hunted animals, you can stop hunting.

Alaska444
December 17, 2011, 01:26 PM
Today, 10:16 AM #49
kraigwy
Senior Member

Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 6,134
Like Fast and Ferrous was a plan to institute gun control they couldn't get passed otherwise, I've convinced eliminating hunting was the main goal of introducing wolves.

Surely they knew how they would spread, and they would dessicate big game heads. You can't get laws passed to stop hunting, but if you could eliminate, or drastically reduce the hunted animals, you can stop hunting.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

+1, Just one more way the govn't is making everyone dependent on them in total. The wolf reintroduction is making havoc with subsistance hunting here in Idaho. I know folks that need to put an elk and a deer in the freezer every year to feed the family. The govn't knows that as well.

arch308
December 17, 2011, 01:29 PM
+1
Or at least they should!

mquail
December 17, 2011, 02:55 PM
Like Fast and Furious was a plan to institute gun control they couldn't get passed otherwise

From everything I've read I can't argue against the above. I'd have to argue for it.

I'm convinced eliminating hunting was the main goal of introducing wolves.

I'm not so sure about this. I think they were simply wanting to return wolves to the Park then the wolves were too successful. The Govt became caught in a dilemma, nothing new there. What the heck were they going to do with all these wolves? I don't know how the ESA (Endangered Species Act) was involved in this but most of us can cite where the ESA has been abused. Anyway I think it all got out of hand.

Surely they knew how they would spread, and they would dessicate big game heads. You can't get laws passed to stop hunting, but if you could eliminate, or drastically reduce the hunted animals, you can stop hunting.



I'm sorry but I can't get on this bandwagon. My personal opinion is they didn't forsee what happened then spent the rest of their time putting out fires and trying to formulate a game plan

maxman894
December 17, 2011, 03:05 PM
No wonder I didn't kill anything (except my legs and feet) this year in the Big Horn's...

Double Naught Spy
December 17, 2011, 11:30 PM
No wonder I didn't kill anything (except my legs and feet) this year in the Big Horn's...

Why not? kraigwy's picture isn't from the Bighorns. It is from over 1100 miles away in Canada.

I'm sorry but I can't get on this bandwagon. My personal opinion is they didn't forsee what happened then spent the rest of their time putting out fires and trying to formulate a game plan

Right, the whole conspiracy theory stuff is probably giving the government way too much credit. A short Google search will easily reveal numerous environmental and ecological programs (some not even related to game animals in any way) that went awry via 'the law of unintended consequences.' Humans (especially government entities influenced and run by humans) have a terrible track record of meddling in extremely complex systems to effect a desired outcome to then only realize that there were numerous unintended outcomes, many not even anticipated despite extensive planning that revealed some potential unintended outcomes, but not all of them.

mapsjanhere
December 18, 2011, 08:59 AM
I'm sure kraig's post wasn't meant to be a factual statement.

Art Eatman
December 18, 2011, 10:40 AM
PJP, sure, there were homo saps around the Rockies 12,000 years ago. But there weren't very many of them. Their methods of food gathering were inefficient.

So here comes Whitey with the idea of having a place to live and of being able to produce food for himself and the marketplace. What does he do? He controls his environment. Since it's difficult to raise sheep and cattle with a bunch of predators around, it's Sayonara to grizzly bears and wolves. God created John M. Browning to make life easier.

Homo sap has always created a new balance of nature as the numbers have expanded. Always will. When it evolves slowly over decades and centuries, most folks figure that as it is today, that's the way it should be tomorrow. Big mistake.

So now, a balance of nature that suited the residents and the visiting hunters has been upset by governmental power and in a short period of time. This particular upset is having a negative impact on the billfolds of those raising livestock as well as those who have made a living from catering to hunters.

Over time there will be a new balance of some sort, but I can make one prediction for sure: Those people who remain in the area will have a reduced standard of living.

reloader28
December 18, 2011, 11:13 AM
I was going to stay out of this, but I will post once.
Its funny how most of the pro wolfers are from places where there is no wolves and know only the BS garbage that the fearless government tells them.

I've heard from 3 very good sources that the wolves were part of a 50 year plan for gun control like Kraig said. Get rid of the animals, you dont need hunters. Get rid of the hunters, you need guns.

The wolves are multiplying WAY faster than you tourists know about, and they have spread clear across this state. In fact, they werent all planted in the Park. I know of 2 ranches well outside the Park boundries that G&F illeagilly planted wolves on. I also know that the WG&F wants to elimenate the wolf on sight, but has to do what the government tells them.

I know for a fact there are wolves in the Bighorns, and yes in a few short years it will be as bad as it is here in the Beartooths.

No matter how much you greenies argue for the good the wolf does, the elk hunting around here has rocketed downhill. The elk are down on the flats out of the mountains trying to stay ahead. Thats also why there are so many griz moving down. We had 7 bear attacks this summer that I know of here. I bet you touristy non-locals didnt hear of any of them. Why is this happening? Because the wolves are pushing the elk into places they normally aint.

Gardener Mt used to be one of the best hunting places in the country. Now they dont even have a hunting season. There are no elk.


I'm going to stop right there and click out. This is one of those never ending debates that will never be solved until we kill every last wolf.

Double Naught Spy
December 18, 2011, 11:21 AM
I'm sure kraig's post wasn't meant to be a factual statement.

Surely you don't mean to imply that he made a drive-by post with intentionally wrong information as a way to troll up controversy, do you?

He attributed the picture as being Circle Park which is a specific place in the Big Horns of Wyoming. He just got it wrong. Even the prey was wrong as the pack was hunting bison according to the photographer.

Now we have even MORE humans and FEWER other animals and they think it is smart to introduce a subspecie known as one of the largest to ever roam the face of the earth.

Ever to roam the face of the earth? LOL. Gray Wolves, regardless of subspecies, aren't even amongst the largest mammals currently residing on earth and are puny in size as compared to the megafauna here during the Pleistocene, and barely a snack when compared to the reptilian giants of the Jurassic.

dalegribble
December 18, 2011, 11:33 AM
""and people also wonder why the elk populations dropped from 17,000 to 2000."

wolves killed 15 thousand elk? why hasn't this hit the news? why isn't geroldo down there interviewing the elk and the wolves? this is news people, thats like 1500 elk per wolf per year or about 5 elk a day each, has anyone seen little red riding hood or the 3 little pigs?

buck460XVR
December 18, 2011, 11:55 AM
No wonder I didn't kill anything (except my legs and feet) this year in the Big Horn's...

Seems to be a dominate excuse amongst unsuccessful hunters on gun/hunting forums nowadays. It wasn't because of bad luck, or harsh winters, it wasn't because I was not prepared, it wasn't because I didn't scout enough or practiced my shooting enough, it was because of a government conspiracy that I came home empty handed......yeah, that's it!:rolleyes:



I've heard from 3 very good sources that the wolves were part of a 50 year plan for gun control like Kraig said

Yep, lets bring in wolves and at the end of 50 years when the majority of livestock and game animals have all been eaten and the wolves are now preying on little children, gun owners will happily give up their firearms. Makes sense to me. I take it the names of those three sources are Larry, Curly and Moe?

Folks you can love the wolves, hate the wolves or have neutral feelings about them. But don't play Washington politics and cloud the issue with false statements, false pictures and silly innuendos. That kinda crap will never help your cause or case. IMHO, wolves have a place in our ecosystem, but their numbers need to be controlled by hunting for the safety and the livelihood of those they live amongst. They are not the big bad wolves from Little Red Riding Hood that is gonna eat your grandma. You conspiracy folks have all kinds of "just you wait and see!" statements, but in areas where they have always been a part of the system, this just ain't happened. As hunters we are a minority here in the lower 48, and are allowed to hunt becasue the majority of folks in this country allow us to. We must remember that. If the majority of folks here in the USA want a viable population of wolves so they can pay big bucks to hear them howl at night, there ain't nuttin' we can do about it but try and convince that majority that the numbers need to be kept in check for the good of all. Makin' up and spreadin' fantastic stories of government conspiracies and makin' statements that illegally shooting wolves because the SSS system is the only way puts the rest of us sportsman in bad light. Just sayin'.

arch308
December 18, 2011, 12:03 PM
Hey buck460XVR, where do you live? I don't buy the govt. conspiracy bit either but I tend to listen to the people who live there and deal with things like this on a daily basis. If they say the elk population is way down it probably is. The wolves don't have to kill them all but the elk will find safer places to live, thus the numbers in a given area will decline IMO.

Pond, James Pond
December 18, 2011, 12:17 PM
Their methods of food gathering were inefficient.


I disagree: their methods provided what they needed to live and they typically did not waste a single part of any material, animal, mineral or plant that they gathered. That sounds like efficiency of the highest order. The only difference is that the settlers from east over the water brought the "market" into the equation. That is when things went downhill.

What does he do? He controls his environment.

It is not control. It is tampering. It only seemed like control when human numbers were too small to make a perceptible difference to the environment. That is no longer the case, and still we feel qualified to tamper....:rolleyes:

Homo sap has always created a new balance of nature as the numbers have expanded.

Again, I think balance is a misnomer. I don't think there isn't anywhere that industrialised man is in balance with his environment.

Is maintaining that trend advisable?
Is wiping out a species anywhere, pragmatically or ethically advisable just because it suits us?

Those are questions we can't really afford to ignore when populations will reach 9 billion within a couple of decades or so, IMHO.

dahermit
December 18, 2011, 12:22 PM
There is a positive side to having wolves re-introduced. Those people who would like to hunt wolves could now have that opportunity in the lower 48. There must be those who would covet a beautiful wolf skin rug.

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 02:29 PM
Folks, move up to northern Idaho or Monatana, WY and actually live with these creatures and take the risks that we do just being in the woods with these alien creatures that don't belong here at all. Wrong subspecies. The Idaho wolf, a subspecies of gray wolf had very different behavior than the Mackenzie Valley gray wolf, was not as large and didn't threaten people or livestock.

Man does a reach a balance with the ecosystem or the ecosystem will die and man shortly thereafter. Subsistance hunting is a tradition in America that is now greatly jeopardized by the Federal program of wolf "reintroduction." Now the entire ecosystem is jeopardized by not only the wolf, but the invasive parasite, Echococcus that is infected bears, mountain lions, deer, elk and anthing that comes in contact with the wolf scat. 62% of Idaho wolves tested were positive for this parasite known prior to "reintroduction." I would readily have to state that if you were to debate this same subject in Finland for instance, they would be laughing at the rediculous ignorance of the dangers of the wolf on direct public health displayed on this thread.

Even the Bible talks about driving the wild beasts out of the areas where man will habitate to protect the people in that area. Come on folks, if you think you can live with this wild beast, just come up to Idaho and try it for a while. After they have eaten a couple of your favorite pets, threatened you and your children and then you get ill with Hydatid cysts growing in your livers and brains, maybe then you will simply say, I should have listened to you.

jimmythegeek
December 18, 2011, 03:27 PM
All the western states spent millions of dollars - back when that was real money - eradicating the gray wolf by around 1930. They didn't do it because they were shamed by that subspecies' elegant table manners.

This is not an alien, invasive species. You may not desire it, but that's another thing.

kraigwy
December 18, 2011, 03:34 PM
Folks, move up to northern Idaho or Monatana, WY and actually live with these creatures

No, stay home and we'll send you the wolves and see how you like them in your back yard.

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 03:42 PM
Today, 12:27 PM #65
jimmythegeek
Member

Join Date: July 10, 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 90
That's just silly.
All the western states spent millions of dollars - back when that was real money - eradicating the gray wolf by around 1930. They didn't do it because they were shamed by that subspecies' elegant table manners.

This is not an alien, invasive species. You may not desire it, but that's another thing.
__________________
If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, does that mean they are starting to like us?

Marlin 795, CZ-455 American, CZ-75 Kadet, USGI M1 Carbine, AOM160 M1 Carbine

Do your homework my friend and you will find that yes, the Mackenzie Valley wolf is an alien invasive subspecies that was not in Northern Idaho previously.

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

One of my friends up in Idaho is a life long resident south of Lake Coeur d'Alene near St. Marie's and grew up on a ranch that he later took over from his father. He recalls very distinctly the native Idaho wolf that didn't bother him or his livestock. They mainly ate field mice according to this man who has spent his entire life living and working in the Idaho woods. Please understand that Great Danes are the same species as Chiwawas. Essentially, you have a wolf that is larger than many Great Danes with the temperament of a Chiwawa that will eat the ankles off of anyone that comes near. Just as Great Danes are distinctively different than a chiwawa, so likewise the Mackenzie Valley gray wolf and the Rocky mountain gray wolf.

Don't worry, a few more years and you will be able to enjoy them too right near Seattle which is surrounded by woods perfect for these creatures. Only a short matter of time before you can enjoy them as well.

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 03:44 PM
Today, 12:34 PM #66
kraigwy
Senior Member

Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 6,140
Quote:
Folks, move up to northern Idaho or Monatana, WY and actually live with these creatures
No, stay home and we'll send you the wolves and see how you like them in your back yard.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071


+1 Kraig, well said!!

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 04:00 PM
Here is an operation removing an Echinococcal cyst from the liver. Not for faint of heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbNnswE6hEw&feature=related

Here is what happens if one of these liver cysts ruptures prior to surgical removal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUu91Ja1spk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCfUrKWar9w&feature=related

Placing these creatures into a high population area compared to the Candian Tundra places the Echinococcal cyst into this population which now includes me and my family. All as a great present from the Feds that no one up here wanted period.

Here is the surgical removal of hydatid cyst from a kidney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPJDxKyunjU&feature=related

Here is the removal of hydatid cyst from the lungs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuNK_yzY0PA

Please explain why the US Federal Government would introduce a serious public health risk into populated areas in the lower 48?

Echinococcal Granulosa life cycle: (Please note, 62% of surveyed wolves in Idaho were infected)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Echinococcus_Life_Cycle.png

Here is the Army manual report on Hydatidosis, something the Feds know all about:

http://www.chppmeur.healthcare.hqusareur.army.mil/sites/usachppmeur/factsheets/DES-FS002%20Fox%20Tapeworm.pdf

Pond, James Pond
December 18, 2011, 04:31 PM
I get the fact that you don't like the wolves and you've gathered reasons to support that view. However, there are a few points that don't add up for me.

Man does a reach a balance with the ecosystem or the ecosystem will die and man shortly thereafter.

I disagree. I think the places where modern, industrialised man exists and how he has affected his environs are not good examples of man in balance with his environment. That has been the case since the industrial revolution.
If that weren't the case, the red wolf that people mention would still be around also.

Now the entire ecosystem is jeopardized by not only the wolf, but the invasive parasite, Echococcus that is infected bears, mountain lions, deer, elk and anthing that comes in contact with the wolf scat. 62% of Idaho wolves tested were positive for this parasite known prior to "reintroduction."

This reintroduced species, whether originally native or not, had to come from somewhereand this parasite with it, prior to ending up in Wyoming.
Therefore, if this parasite is so virulent, then the place it came from must be utterly devastated, with most mammals affected.
Do we know this to be the case?
(I seem to recall someone writing that they came from Canada)

I would readily have to state that if you were to debate this same subject in Finland...

I live across the water from Finland. And by land only around the Bay of Helsinki, and I have to say we've have not heard anything about such a parasite.
Not saying it is not there, just that it is not something that has been publicised. One would expect it would be if it is so dangerous to humans and other mammals. And people here spend a lot of time in the forest, weather permitting.
Health authorities are, however, very focused on Tick-borne encepahlitis, as I mentioned before.

Even the Bible talks about driving the wild beasts out of the areas where man will habitate to protect the people in that area.

Whilst each is entitled to their own spiritual views, I don't really see biblical writings as relevant to human/ecosystem interaction in the modern world.

No offence, but I personally don't see that as a viable arguement for acting against any animal species.

The part I have diffculty understanding in all of this is that "eradication" is the only answer being considered: the only viable option as some would see it.
No one is even entertaining the possibility that any other possible solutions exist. I don't profess to know what these other options may be, but I bet there are some.

buck460XVR
December 18, 2011, 04:41 PM
Hey buck460XVR, where do you live? I live in Central Wisconsin amongst two of the largest packs of wolves in the state.

Folks, move up to northern Idaho or Monatana, WY and actually live with these creatures and take the risks that we do just being in the woods with these alien creatures that don't belong here at all
No, stay home and we'll send you the wolves and see how you like them in your back yar

As I said I don't need to move, nor do I need you to send me your wolves, we plenty already.

After they have eaten a couple of your favorite pets, threatened you and your children and then you get ill with Hydatid cysts growing in your livers and brains, maybe then you will simply say, I should have listened to you.

Oh boy....more misinformed sensationalism.:rolleyes: Funny how if this is such a big threat, why hasn't there been more about this in the national media? Oh, that's right, they must be involved with this big conspiracy also.

I wonder how many here that so profoundly predict the gloom and doom of wolves returning to the ecosystem have actually seen a wolf track in the wild, much less a live animal up close and in person. How many cannot actually identify a wolf track, but still try to convince us as to their expertise in wildlife biology. Many here make the point about folks that don't live amongst wolves don't know what they're talking about, but somehow if they are against wolves, their credibility strengthens. Funny how many of the hard-core anti-wolfers are from Texas and other states....where there are no Grey Wolves at all in the wild. But then, many times, these are the same folks that think deer hunting consists of squatting over a automatic feeder within a high fence enclosure.

When was the last time any of you walked over the top of fresh wolf tracks? Mine was yesterday while out bird hunting. Yep, gotta be aware of wolves with a birddog, because a wolf will kill them on sight, part of the instincts born within their brain. That's why a responsible dog owner keeps their dogs close. Let 'em run and shame on you, not the wolf. If you don't know better than this, you don't deserve to have a dog. The time before that was last Saturday while out deer hunting with my handguns. Saw more wolf tracks on this patch of highly pressured public land than deer tracts. Guess I coulda come here cryin' and blamed the wolves for my failure. Guess I shoulda posted a picture of Alaskan wolves downing a caribou to explain why I came home empty handed here in Wisconsin. But instead, I blame the cold for the crunchy ground and my moving to fast to get close enough for a shot. As a matter of fact, the wolf tracks made me confident there was deer in the area, as they don't stay where there isn't plenty of game available. These wolves have been here for decades and reintroduced themselves to Wisconsin from neighboring states where they were never eradicated. Because the state has no power to control their numbers, they have become somewhat of a problem as the DNR was forced to eradicate two small packs because they were preying on dogs left out at night and has lost their fear of coming close to buildings. Again, what responsible pet owner would leave their prized pets out all night to roam freely in wolf country is beyond me, but it was what it was. This was within 10 miles of where I live and right where I do a lot of hunting. The hunting of these animals quickly changed the wolves bad habits. I too think the feds need to get outta the wolf control business and leave it up to the individual state to decide what numbers are appropriate. As smart as wolves are it won't take them long to learn to go back to being secretive and to avoid humans. Their lack of this now is not because of being a sub-species, but a learned response. No threat, no reason to be wary. Have humans start hunting you down and killing you, you either get smart and stay far away or you die....problem solved.

As I said, there has been several packs around here for several decades. There has yet to be a case of Little Red Riding Hood being attacked while waiting for the bus, nor has there been a huge outbreak of Hydatid cysts growing in our livers and brains. Funny, the whitetail deer around here carry a form of CWD that is related to mad-cow disease. The deer do more monetary damage to crops, landscaping and vehicles and kill more people in Car/deer collisions than wolves, but folks still whine they want more deer and less wolves. Must be a selfish thing, eh?

Oh BTW, this from Alaska444s link...


The adult Echinococcus granulosus (3 to 6 mm long) [1] resides in the small bowel of the definitive hosts (dogs or other carnivores). Gravid proglottids release eggs [2] that are passed in the feces. Humans become infected by ingesting eggs

.......Guess we all need to quit eatin' the wolf poop.:eek:

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 05:31 PM
Dear Pond, James Pond,

No I did not say that there was a wolf or hydatid cyst problem across the waters from Finland. Secondly, go read about the public health issues in Finland and Russia caused by wolves and Hydatid cysts. You have no need to take my opinion for anything, yet you should acquaint yourself with the Finnish and Russian public records and reports of how they have targeted wolves as the main culprit in this public health issue.

Having grown up in Alaska and northern Maine and now living in Northern Idaho the better part of the year, I will be the first to state that we need to preserve wild areas and strike a balance with resource use and wild life preservation. Nevertheless, we do all benefit from our high tech, industrial society and I seriously doubt that many will have desire to chuck it all and go live in a tent in the subarctic living off of the land. A great deal of resources now go to mitigating the impact of our industrialized life on the ecosystem with many areas of great success. No argument there at all, however, that is NOT the issue we are discussing.

We are discussing placing a non-native subspecies of wolves "designed" by "nature" to be very successful killing machines in a land where prey have a distinct survival advantage over the wolves. Caribou simply are faster, herd in larger groups and are in balance with the Mackenzie Valley wolves that truly have little impact on Caribou populations.

Take this same highly skilled, large aggressive creature that works hard to feed in the harsh Arctic and Sub-arctic regions, place them in much more temperate climates where more of their pups survive, where deer and elk are MUCH easier prey that are much more solitary than caribou to the north and watch what happens to your ungulate population that truly is not capable of coping with such a terrorizing presence. Simply put, these wolves don't have to work as hard to survive in this environment as up north.

When I was a kid, I rarely worried about dogs attacking me even though we were out and about all the time with dogs running lose just about everywhere. However, since that time, people have migrated to Pit Bulls and Rotty's to the point that it is a real issue when I go for walks in my neighborhood. They are all the SAME species, so why I am afraid now to walk without any protection, the least of which in CA is a walking stick, when as a kid with much less bulk to fight them off they never bothered me? Simply put, we now see a much different "subspecies" of dog with different behavior and much different modes of attack. Remember, just because you can breed a pit bull with a chiwawa (why any one would , I don't know) and they are the same species, but are you really going to argue that they are the same creature with the same characteristics?

I have given you much information, but it appears that you have not really studied this issue in depth. Dig up the research on the Finnish reasons for aggressively reducing wolf population levels and why they have done so as a public health initiative and then let's discuss that data specifically instead of personal opinions not based on the facts.

HiBC
December 18, 2011, 05:53 PM
Some years back the Colorado Division of Wildlife had a public meeting in Ft Collins,Co to discuss deer mgt ,particularly because deer populations were remarkably down.

We were shown some film clips created with the help of the Fed Fish and Wildlife.It showed factors such as deer browsing vs other animals grazing,etc.Then they lightly danced over predation, saying the coyotes roll was controversial while including brilliant ideas like a tax funded program to administer contraception to coyotes.

Later in the presentation,we were told that mature doe deer were very successful at survival.Radio collar tracking had proved that.The issue of concern was fawn mortality.I have forgotten the numbers,but a very high percentage of fawns were being lost to coyotes in their first season.

During a break,I asked a DOW officer why they did not just ask us all to help control coyotes.

He explained forces far greater than he controlled what message he was to deliver,but,that privately,he wanted me to kill every coyote I could.He further explained how,on the Colorado/Utah border,they had the same problem.

What was interesting,Utah resumed shooting coyotes from the air,and,amazingly,fawn mortality dropped and the herds began to recover.

We still have no over the counter deer tags in Colorado.Everything is a draw.

I know,the topic is not coyotes.We had no wolves then.

I do not think the wolf lovers have much respect for the animals the wolves kill.

In fairness,I think the wolves should be released along the Appalachian Trail,maybe Central Park....

Its funny,the one wolf I believe we really need to preserve in our society is the one who lives outside the front door.The one who guards dignity.
That one the Fed wants to eradicate with dependency

I suggest this link to a Dillon Aero clip will provde an idea for a way to control wolves that would be suitable,in my opinion.

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

truthteller
December 18, 2011, 05:54 PM
This photo of 25 wolves is real. It was taken in Canada, not Wyoming. The author deserves credit for his photo. Please see this link:

http://www.wildlifeartjournal.com/blog/341/wolf-pack-train.html#

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 05:59 PM
Dear buck460XVR, simply because you are not informed about this issue does not make my documented and sound communication of articles, reports and studies on these issues conspiracy or lunacy in some manner that you are erroneously trying to imply. Yes, Echinococcus, Hydatid disease is a public health issue in Canada where indiginous people live among the wolves and use dogs in their culture for many purposes. Take a look at a scientific, medical report from Canada in one small village:

http://www.ajtmh.org/content/82/4/643.full

As far as why the Feds are pretty much silent to the population at risk, I will let others speculate on why that is, but Canada does not remain silent on this disease and has some well developed literature for hunters and others that spend time in the endemic areas.

http://www.unbc.ca/nlui/wildlife_diseases_bc/bc_wildlife_disease.pdf

The disease is easily caught by transfer in several ways, the most common is through an infected dog that then licks you in the face for instance. It can be easily transmitted in that manner.

http://www.science.org.au/nova/056/056key.htm

Finland has found that reducing the culprit animal host to low levels greatly reducing the risk to the people in the area. Once again, a little research on these issues will elaborate the facts, not opinions that I am relating.

As far as wolf tracks, ALL over the place during Idaho hunting season and you could hear them howling in the distance. One of my friends had wolf tracks the next morning right through the middle of their camp during the night in fresh snow. Wolf tracks, yeah, all over the place. More importantly, wolf scat was EVERYWHERE. That is the issue with Hydatid cysts especially for those that use hunting dogs for bear or mountain lions and then bring home this parasite easily transmissable to humans.

Yes, human infestation is a serious public health issue in Canada, Finland and Russia. No, this is not some sort of conspiracy claim. Get real my friend, and perhaps read and study some of the links I have provided prior to falsely accusing me of conspiracy mongering.

buck460XVR
December 18, 2011, 06:13 PM
Dear buck460XVR, simply because you are not informed about this issue does not make my documented and sound communication of articles, reports and studies on these issues conspiracy or lunacy in some manner that you are erroneously trying to imply.
I have given you much information, but it appears that you have not really studied this issue in depth. Dig up the research on the Finnish reasons for aggressively reducing wolf population levels and why they have done so as a public health initiative and then let's discuss that data specifically instead of personal opinions not based on the facts.

I've spent the last hour doing just as you asked and have read the "Management plan for the wolf population in Finland" as prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Funny how their story is much different than yours. From what they say they are not aggressively reducing wolf populations, but are allowing populations to stay the same in half the country while allowing the population to increase in the other half. Altho they do make mention of the parasite you claim will be the death of us all, they make no mention of it being a major health risk, much less of any mass outbreaks. Same with the risks to humans. They claim most of the negativity for the wolf comes from unfounded fear, and that even tho there is no records of a wolf attack on humans in Finland in the last two centuries, the government still provides transportation for school children within the wolfs range. I thought it interesting that they claim the majority of this unfounded fear is harbored in females, the old and the uneducated.


Oh....just in case you want to read it, here's the link........Management plan for the wolf population in Finland (http://wwwb.mmm.fi/julkaisut/julkaisusarja/2005/MMMjulkaisu2005_11b.pdf)

Deja vu
December 18, 2011, 06:24 PM
Seems the only people who want wolves in the Northern Rockies is the people who don't live in the Norther Rockies.

I use to hunt in the Lolo zone. The last time I went there I saw 11 wolves and not a single elk. I now hunt elk closer to home. Last year I saw my first wolf here. Its just a mater of time.

arch308
December 18, 2011, 06:35 PM
Jeez guys, calm down.
I'm sure we all agree on one thing, whatever happens should be decided locally, not by the feds. Right?

IDAHO83501
December 18, 2011, 06:39 PM
Sad picture,,,I'm sorry for your loss..........Here in the Clearwater region of Idaho,,,our Elk numbers,,and Elk hunting have fallen on hard times....Wolves are Evil....plain and simple !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 06:54 PM
Dear buck460XVR, you are failing to recognize the serious public health issues of the 1950-1970's that lead Finland and Russia to wage a government sponsored battle against the wolves in those areas to keep them to the lowest possible levels without complete extermination. You are quoting a political document drawn up by politicians. Let's go back and look at some historical and scientific reports that will give you the background on this issue and why many scientists in Finland and Russia shake their head in complete dismay at Americans placing these beasts back into the ecosystem where they are the known propagator of Hydatid disease. In addition, the snow mobile has replaced many of the duties that dogs performed reducing the contact with Hydatid disease due to wolves.

Finland keeps a very close eye on the interaction of wolves and reindeer since reindeer is such an important economic force for the native peoples of Finland. In many ways, Finland has already secured a rational approach to wolves and management of them is quite closely followed due to the history of out of control disease from a generation ago. The report you cited is completely devoid of the true history of the battle of Finland against the wolves. Go figure why, but here is an old scientific report on Hydadit disease and wolves.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1526&context=parasitologyfacpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfinland%2520hydatid%2520disease%2520reindeer%2520herders%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D18%26ved%3D0CFMQFjAHOAo%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1526%2526context%253Dparasitologyfacpubs%26ei%3DnHjuTvHEIeGRiQLzh9CLBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHhph5hRLdtmEgqSAFkRxPcloO0bg#search=%22finland%20hydatid%20disease%20reindeer%20herders%22

I now carry enough ammo for my rifle and revolver to protect against an entire wolf pack. I used to carry enough to protect against a bear or mountain lion with loaded gun and one speed loader. Now, I carry 3-4 speed loaders, my 20 pack rifle cartridges in a leather case with both my .44 magnum revolver and my .444 Marlin loaded completely. I hope I never encounter them, but from the folks that report being surrounded by wolves while on their pack horses, etc, they were not at all afraid of the sound of a rifle or pistol. In addition, I now leave my boots out in the garage and do not bring them into the house any longer because of all the wolf poo that you may have no idea you even went near. Since, 2008, the numbers of wolves in Northern Idaho is exploding. No wonder the governor signed the wolf disaster bill back in April.

I would invite folks to come up to Idaho and spend some time with the folks that spend their time in the woods. I suspect that after a couple months hanging out, you will have a very different attitude towards these creatures. I would strongly recommend spending some time with the ranchers and what they are up against in bringing that beef to the market all of us enjoy. It is time to bring some common sense. No one is talking about making the wolves go extinct, but I will tell you, no one missed them at all while they were gone from this ecosystem and no one that spends any time out in the woods of Idaho is happy that they are back.

Here is an opinion from a Canadian scientist who has studied the Echinococcus organism for years. We should pay attention to some real science on this issue and learn from the Fins and Russians how they handled these issues nearly 50 years ago.

http://leg.mt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2009_2010/Environmental_Quality_Council/Meeting_Documents/May2010/geist-wolf-disease-memo.pdf

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 07:39 PM
Dear

I believe I have found the reason why your 2005 Wolf Management plan was so lacking is historical facts. Since joining the EU, the wolf is now a protected animal even in Finland:

This part of Finland is just north of the line that demarcates the country's reindeer herding zone. Before Finnish law was amended in 2001 to meet EU standards, there were few restrictions on hunting of predators here. Now, every kill must be covered by a permit. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry grants around 30 permits a year.

"Until Finland joined the EU, they were free to hunt these predators in the reindeer herding areas," said Schepel, the local official of the Finnish ministry. "The EU expects Finland to protect these predators but we have a big conflict between the reindeer herders and the demands of the EU."

In 1998 in the Yhteensa reindeer herding district, 22 reindeer were killed by lynx, 8 by wolves, 50 by bears and 56 by wolverines. In 2007 lynx killed 102, wolves 236, bears 92 and wolverines 59, according to Schepel's statistics.

The European Commission insists that, under the European Habitats Directive, wolves have the right to be protected - whatever their "nationality" - when in EU territory. "Men and wolves have lived together for centuries, and there is no reason why they should not continue to do so," said Barbara Helfferich, a spokeswoman for Dimas. "We need to ensure coexistence and protect the species according to the law."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/world/europe/18iht-wolves.4.9331091.html?pagewanted=all

Pretty much analogous to the Fed-state interaction where at the local level, people rightly wish to control the Idaho wolf disaster, but the Feds are a stumbling block. To stay in compliance with EU laws and wolf protection, their wolf management plan must also be in compliance. I seriously doubt that at the local level, there is any support for EU wolf protetective status.

It appears Finland is being forced by the EU to comply by the power of the laws of the EU:

Finland last year lost a court case brought by the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, which ruled that Finns had failed to protect wolves from hunters. The commission is expected to review the case and decide in the next two weeks whether the authorities in Helsinki protect wolves and other endangered predators sufficiently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/europe/21wolves.html

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 07:43 PM
Digging deeper, it looks like Sweden has fallen for this lunacy as well and is "reintroducing" wolves into their areas that have low wolf population numbers. Finland is opposing this however:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/02/15/Sweden-Finland-clash-over-wolf-plan/UPI-22441297788062/

It appears that Finland doesn't want any more than about 110-130 wolves in the entire country. The number in all of Sweden is about 200. We are approaching nearly a 1000 in the greater Idaho/Montana area alone. I don't believe looking at Finland is going to be an ally for promoting the Federal Wolf disaster in Idaho, far from it. Finland has been there done that and doesn't want to go back to high numbers of these critters. They are very tightly controlled. It is the EU that is trying to force a different course on Finland that locals are resisting. Hmmm, sounds familiar to me.

dalegribble
December 18, 2011, 08:14 PM
since the original post was about wyoming i did a little research. it is amazing how much bs is posted on boards like this that isn't true. just like the bogus picture posted of all the wolvesthese are some actual facts.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

JACKSON - The Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the estimated number of elk in the state is well above the agency's goal population.
The most recent elk count shows more than 93,000 elk in the state. The Game and Fish goal is about 83,000, meaning the population is about 12 percent above the goal.


Wyoming gray wolf population grew by 7 percent in 2010
March 11, 2011 by bill.mccarthy

CHEYENNE – The federal government’s annual report on gray wolves shows about 7 percent growth in Wyoming.
Wyoming’s population increased from 320 to 343 in about 45 packs, that include 27 breeding pairs, according to the report posted on the Internet today.

btw....... 343 wolves divided by 45 packs averages less than 8 wolves per pack.

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 08:20 PM
Wyoming isn't the state most impacted by wolves at the present time. Go look up the data for Idaho and you will get a different story.

mapsjanhere
December 18, 2011, 09:27 PM
I did:
Idaho
Elk Population: 103,000 (http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/Features/Articles/)
Wolf population: 705 (http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/reportAnnual10.pdf)
Doesn't sound like they have a huge issue with disappearing elk herds. They're also taking 20% of the wolfs annually via hunts.

maxman894
December 18, 2011, 09:31 PM
Please excuse me for trying to make a joke. It seems to me that no one can ever take a joke in this world anymore. If I was attributing my lack of a kill to the wolves, I wouldn't even consider myself a hunter. There are many variables that would make it so you would be lucky enough or not to come home with a kill. So once again, would everyone please excuse my sarcasm? I seem to be the only one who understands it... :confused:

dalegribble
December 18, 2011, 09:36 PM
to alaska 444.....................from the rocky mt elk foundation.

Idaho
Elk Population: 107,000
Bull/Cow Ratios: 10 to 50/100
Nonresidents: $142 hunting license plus $373 elk tag.
Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? Not even close, says Brad Compton of Idaho Fish and Game. “We still have some good elk hunting. Wolves have had an impact on our herds in some parts of the state, but they’ve not been decimated like it’s been publicized.” Elk populations are fairly stable statewide with areas of western Idaho trending upward, while wolves have had the biggest impact on the Lolo and Sawtooth zones on the Idaho/Montana border. For 2009, caps will occur on tags offered in the Sawtooth and Diamond Creek elk zones. Idaho elk hunters enjoy around a 20 percent success rate on average. In an area such as the Lolo zone, elk are holing up more often in security cover. Compton suggests hunters who enjoy hunting whitetails in cover should try the same tactics for elk.

Cowboy_mo
December 18, 2011, 09:47 PM
No he didn't say that man came from Monkeys but he did have 4 pieces to the puzzle as to why some species survive and some (like the dinosaurs) become extinct.

Now, wolves will never be extinct in this world but that doesn't mean they should be living in every part of the world. They were extinct (or eradicated) from the Western U.S. and thus the elk, deer, and other prey animals thrived. Those states made a ton of money from people who paid to hunt those animals and thus control their population.

Then some "well meaning" people decided the wolves should get a 2nd chance in those areas and now the prey herds are suffering and eventually (if not already) the livestock populations will suffer.

You can't violate Darwin's laws without causing damage to the remainder of the ecosystem. Finally, I am absolutely amazed at the number of people on a hunting/shooting forum that think this violation is a good idea despite what the experts from state and federal resource management say.

spaniel
December 18, 2011, 09:51 PM
Don't have time to read all of this thread...

I will say that as a biologist myself, this whole ordeal smacks of lunacy. Introducing an apex predator onto prey populations that no longer have the flexibility afforded to them in former times -- elk/deer are now restricted to much smaller geographical areas than they formerly were due to human habitaiton -- with no plan to control the population of the apex predator, is textbook stupidity.

I have nothing against wolves. I don't mind them being there. But to allow their population to explode unchecked, is simply asking for an extermination of game species.

As for trusting various state Fish and Game agencies to be authorities on game population levels...been there done that and I have little faith. Most recently the area of Montana I hunted this year, F&G said the elk came through the hard winter well and numbers were as good or better than the prior year. We saw hillsides littered with winter kill skeletons and every hunter we talked to that hunted there annually said they'd never seen fewer elk in that area.

There was an area of western Montana I used to hunt, we saw decent elk numbers every year. Now the wolves arrived and within a year it was not even worth the effort to hunt there. Fish and Game can spout whatever numbers they want, but when I talk to most of the hunters in the area and hundreds of foot/horse miles add up to only half a dozen elk sightings, something is seriously wrong.

mapsjanhere
December 18, 2011, 09:58 PM
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business.

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 10:00 PM
Perhaps you should do a bit more homework on the Idaho elk predation problem. Wolves are not evenly spread throughout the state with some areas having the majority of the wolves such as the Lolo region where the wolves are literally wiping out the herds. Up in Coeur d'alene, and the panhandle area, wolves are beginning to spread but they have not yet reached the level as in Lolo area. However, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to forecast what is coming in these areas as well as the numbers of wolves exponentially increase.

Take a look at the 2010 Idaho F&G report:

http://greateryellowstone.org/uploads/Idaho_FG.pdf

Also, if you do a bit more homework, the state is planning to reduce the wolf presence by 75%, not just the 20% you are talking about. Idaho has up to 800 wolves at present and the Feds set a minimum number of 150 for the state. Looking at the numbers in Finland and Sweden, that may be a manageable number.

In addition, how many "annual" wolf hunts do you think that we have had in Idaho in the last 10 years? One in 2009 and this year only.

I would also read some of the news reports on wolf depredation from Idaho to get a flavor of what Idaho is up against. Idaho is "blessed" to have more than half of the estimated 1500 wolves in the greater Yellowstone area of WY, MT and ID also over to WA and OR. There is a reason that the state passed a wolf disaster bill last April.

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/state-and-regional/livestock-kills-rise-as-wolf-season-opens/article_cea5958a-aa78-58b6-aae3-3c5b164a9526.html

spaniel
December 18, 2011, 10:01 PM
"The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business."

Why do you default to unlimited and unchecked wolf population being the assumed proper objective?

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 10:09 PM
Today, 06:58 PM #90
mapsjanhere
Senior Member

Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 1,897
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.
Or, if you don't like federal ownership, you give everything to local control, and the ranchers will eliminate the elk as competition to their livestock. Or fence the elk in and charge you "private land hunt" rates. Ted Turner gets $12k per trophy elk, it's real good business.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice


Good grief!! Sorry, but elk are an important resource that Idaho has protected for quite some time not the least of which is the out of state hunting license revenue it generates. Not sure where you are getting your logic, but it has no place in the reality of Idaho before the Feds placed wolves here. The did just fine managing the elk herds in Idaho without any help from the Feds before the wolf reintroduction program. Now that the issue is back at the state level, Idaho will manage the elk and the wolves just fine without any Fed intervention. Afterall, it is the folks that actually live in Idaho that have to live with these creatures. If you want some, ask the Feds to give you some.

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 10:34 PM
Here is a graph of wolf numbers in WY, MT and Idaho as well as depredations against live stock. Without intervention, the numbers of wolves will grow exponentially. It is time to control this out of control wolf population while there is something left to preserve.

http://bruskotter.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/wolf-population-growth-stagnates-will-the-rhetoric/

kraigwy
December 18, 2011, 10:39 PM
The solution is very easy, just cancel all grazing permits on public land. Plenty of forage for the elk herds, enough to feed wolves to hunt for fur, and no rangers screaming about livestock.

Here is a clue for you Einsteins, Elk/deer are browsers, cows/sheep are grazers. They don't compete for the same food.

Thats what you get for allowing outsiders setting rules for areas they've never been to. It's akin to Hillary Clinton (in the 90) telling ranchers to hire their own cattle guards since the cattle guards don't pay taxes.

Do you have any ideal what meat would cost if they didn't allow public grasing. Not to mention the fire hazzard from lightning strikes on dry grass because the live stock aren't allowed to keep it down.

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 10:48 PM
The following map shows why the wolf problem is mainly an issue with Idaho and Montana more so than WY.

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/postimage/2009_NR_wolf_map.jpg

Alaska444
December 18, 2011, 10:58 PM
Here is the elk population numbers for the Bitteroot ecosystem where wolves are decimating the herds:

http://explorethebitterroot.com/bitterroot-wolf-elk-study-request-for-funding

IdahoHombre
December 19, 2011, 03:28 PM
I'm pretty certain that Idaho will get down to the ol' objective of 150 - or at least they will try. I have confidence in the Governor that he wants to see that done. I'd like to get there quicker by offering a bounty on the wolves, as that proved to work quite well earlier in the 20th Century, when wolves were considered an "infestation" in Idaho.

I would also note that elk and wolf surveys are not exact science. I think any biologist will admit that. But wildlife management decisions have to be based off of something. Surveys can sometimes not be 100% accurate, but that doesn't mean F&G agencies are purposely hiding facts.

Their livelihoods depend upon tag/license sales. It would be a non-sensical PR move to tell hunters elk herds are above or at objective when they aren't. Hunters aren't stupid. If evidence out in the field appears to prove otherwise, I would suggest that the truth is somewhere in the middle, at least from a logical point of view. Maybe I'm missing something.

langenc
December 19, 2011, 04:06 PM
Wolves are just like dumps, prisons, power plants and the like. They are great and everyone needs several, just dont put it anywhere near me!!!

Pond, James Pond
December 19, 2011, 04:36 PM
@Alaska444

Well, thanks for the clarification that the two issues of parasite infestation and wolf policy in Finland were in fact not linked.
However, having re-read the post I had been answering, I have to say the distinction there is not so clear. Hence why I made that connection.

I, indeed, have not read through the material in detail, nor have I had time to serach for points of view from the other perspective which there are bound to be: unfortunately now is a rather hectic period...

Personally, I fervently hope that a true balance can be reached, and that outright elimination of anything is not necessary. It certainly seems, based on some posters' figures that there are some gounds for that hope...

Double Naught Spy
December 19, 2011, 04:52 PM
One of my friends up in Idaho is a life long resident south of Lake Coeur d'Alene near St. Marie's and grew up on a ranch that he later took over from his father. He recalls very distinctly the native Idaho wolf that didn't bother him or his livestock. They mainly ate field mice according to this man who has spent his entire life living and working in the Idaho woods.

You have mentioned this in a couple of threads now. This may be what your friend remembers, but it isn't an accurate description for Rocky Mountain wolves. They were pack hunters and their primary prey were elk and bison.
http://www.yellowstoneinsider.com/issues/wolves/wolves-in-yellowstone-a-short-history/all-pages.php

When those animals were depleted or encroached upon sufficiently through Manifest Destiny, the Rocky Mountain wolves did turn to hunting livestock. That is a big part of the reason attempts were made to completely eradicate them.
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/NorthernRockyMountainWolfRecoveryPlan.pdf

If they were living in such peaceful harmony as your friend remembers, then they would not have been hunted to near extinction.

It is a very romantic notion that the indigenous wolves of Idaho were living in harmony with people, but that isn't reality. They didn't just eat mostly mice (ala Cry Wolf).

Locals in the 1800s and early 1900s hated the Rocky Mountain wolf as much as locals today hate the MacKenzie Valley wolf.

markj
December 19, 2011, 05:14 PM
and were eradicated by the 1930s.

With the govts help too. There is a reason they were eradicated, too bad city folk dont understand the loss of one cow. One cow could produce 10 calves, each one could bring a grand or more, do the math. 100 cows get killed some rancher is out 100 thousand bucks. How many of you could suffer that loss yearly over a 10 year spread? You would go bust, not enough padding in the cattle industry today for that type of loss. Who will pay for it? anyone eats beef will pay.

Beef cost at the auctions is higher than i seen it for years, will keep on going up too.

Good for me, bad for most others.

Why folks trap mice when they get into places they dont want em, same thing here.

Alaska444
December 19, 2011, 05:52 PM
Dear DNS, it is a very brave thing to call my friend a liar which he is not. He is quite familiar with the Mackenzie Valley wolf since he has spent quite a bit of time hunting in the Mackenzie Valley over the years. How many times have you been there? In addition, he has written three books on life in the mountains. Yes, he knows how to read as well. He is quite familiar with all of the game and predators here in the Pacific Northwest and Canada.

Secondly, he is a life long rancher in Northern Idaho, I respect his opinions on game and wild life and have found him spot on in every way. Go read your books on wolves my friend, I will go see them in the wild and learn from those that have lived a lifetime up here. He is not alone in his assessment of the Idaho wolf as I have listed the link several times. What is described in the link is exactly what my friend described to me.

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

Lastly, the native Idaho wolf is not the same subspecies found in Montana and Wyoming. I looked at your government propaganda links that is a true source of propaganda. I would suggest that you spend some time talking and learning from some of the old timers here in Idaho who have spent their entire lives out in these woods instead of your govn't propaganda papers which clearly do not reflect the experience of life long Idaho woodsmen.

ZeroJunk
December 19, 2011, 06:32 PM
Whether it be DNS's sources or Alaska's sources it is prcatically impossible to read anything about this subject that is not biased one way or another.

But, when it is all said and done things were still just fine without the wolves.

Alaska444
December 19, 2011, 08:13 PM
Things will be just fine once we have their population under control. 150 won't be too soon.

As far as bias, someone that has lived their entire life ranching should be respected. He has no reason for bias, just giving his experience as a rancher since he was a kid on his father's ranch that he later took over. The native Idaho wolf was about half the size of the Mackenzie Valley wolf and in its greatly reduced numbers, did not pose a threat to his live stock. In addition, because they were shot on sight for so many years, they avoided man.

Not so with this huge animal animal that the Feds have placed in Idaho.

As far as the graphs and other things, most of those come from the F&G data sources as well as the wolf re-introduction committees. If you look at the map of the breeding packs as well as the graphs of the population increases, you can see that Idaho has been hit the hardest of the three states: WY, MT, ID. This information came from the F&G folks and is also seconded by the wolf reintroduction folks. Idaho spent a couple of million last year looking at the elk and wolf numbers. Is that information biased as well?

If folks are going to call information biased, I guess we couldn't even describe the differences between a great dane and a chiwawa without someone making that same statement of bias. To show bias, you have to prove it. Simply stating that a source is biased is not enough. If I described my high school neighbors great dane Merle who used to look eye ball to eye ball with me because he was so huge, is that a biased statement? No that is an observation that he was so big I looked directly into his eyes. (I am 5'7" tall). That is an objective observation of how big that Merle was in relation to me. You should have seen the beast when he stood on his hind legs!!

So why would a man that has actually spent quite a few summers camping, hunting and fishing in the Mackenzie valley in Canada where he saw wolves, bear, mountain lion and likewise spent the rest of his life literally out in the woods ranching, farming and logging. He likewise came across the native Idaho wolf on several occasions and had opportunity to observe this creature and its habits in Idaho. In fact, he was seeing it more frequently prior to the wolf reintroduction.

That my friend is an experienced observation. It is not a biased view as DNS states. He has no axe to grind, he no longer ranches or logs. In times past, we used seek out these sort of folks as guides because they knew the land and the animals in the land. But now, because DNS states that this man is biased and he has never met him, never spoken with him and knows nothing of his experiences. That has another name, defamation of character. The burden of proof is on DNS to show the bias.

So, if folks are going to accuse him of bias, that is an allegation that must be proven. On the other hand, if his opinions and experiences are consistent with other observers, then his information is important and relevant.

Alaska444
December 19, 2011, 10:15 PM
Native Idaho Timberwolf observations from a biologist in 1916: Can we agree that his observations are not biased by the current political aspects of the wolf "reintroduction" plan?

Canis lupus irremotus subsp. nov.

Type--From Red Lodge, Carbon County, southwestern Montana. Male adult, skin and skull, collected by M.E. Martin, April 19, 1916.

Distribution--Northern Rocky Mountain region, and high adjoining plains, from southwestern Wyoming north through western Montana and eastern Idaho at least to Lethbridge, Alberta.

General characters--A light-colored subspecies of medium to rather large size, with narrow but flattened frontal region. Similar in size to Canis lupus youngi of the more southern Rocky Mountain region, but whiter, the upper parts less heavily overlaid with black; skull differs in detail, especially in the narrowness of the frontal region. Size larger and color whiter than in Canis lupus nubilis of Nebraska, or in Canis lupus gigas of southwestern Washington, and differs from both in cranial features, including the relative narrowness of the frontal region. Differs from Canis lupus occidentalis of Mackenzie in decidedly smaller size.

http://wolfology1.tripod.com/id87.htm

Looking up the history of the wolf reintroduction plan, in 1973, canis lupus irremotus was listed as endangered by the ESA. In 1978, they changed its classification to canis lupus opening the door to introducing a different subspecies that in 1916 was noted to be much larger than the native Idaho wolf. The observation of this biologist nearly a hundred years ago lines up exactly with what my friend from Idaho had to state about the two subspecies. The politicians have reclassified the native Idaho, Rocky Mountain wolf to allow the Canadian wolf to be placed here instead.

Sadly, in doing so they have wiped out what was a slowly recovering native population.

Get the facts, not the hype on wolves and the interloper from Canada. They do NOT belong here.

Gbro
December 21, 2011, 12:17 AM
Excellent research AK444,

Also a big thank you to Spaniel for his confirming statement.As for trusting various state Fish and Game agencies to be authorities on game population levels...been there done that and I have little faith. Most recently the area of Montana I hunted this year, F&G said the elk came through the hard winter well and numbers were as good or better than the prior year. We saw hillsides littered with winter kill skeletons and every hunter we talked to that hunted there annually said they'd never seen fewer elk in that area.
Nothing like "Boots on the Ground" I will take that over someone behind a desk trying to justify the job.
Good thread Kraig, you certainly are not the 1st to get a misrepresented picture. And won't be the last.
As for my neck of the woods, we have deer and just like we were told, the wolf will enhance the herd. Well that's the truth as long as we are also happy with a reduced herd. And the deer also tend to move in closer to the populated areas and so do the big cats. There have been many Mountain Lion sightings in the area, way up from 20-30 years ago.
But of course this is also "Boots on the Ground" as our DNR is quick to Deni there are Lions frequenting our forests.

Alaska444
December 21, 2011, 01:46 AM
The mountain lions are just transients passing through to CT. LOL

Yes, I will take the boots on the ground sooner than the "official" line from from the govn't. Too many instances where the information and data is distorted.