PDA

View Full Version : Is this normal size for a wolf?


Blackops_2
December 24, 2011, 05:34 PM
:eek:

First off this isn't me as you can see i live in the delta. But i was wondering fo rall you that hunt wolves in the mountains and protect elk populations etc. This size of that animal isn't normal is it? This just seems far to big for a wolf. Maybe i've never seen one and thats why but thats rather huge IMO.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=259917&Number=2987984#Post2987984

http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv148/alblue1/critters/wolf1.jpg
http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv148/alblue1/critters/wolf3.jpg
http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv148/alblue1/critters/wolf4.jpg

Art Eatman
December 24, 2011, 07:24 PM
Anything in front of the person will look relatively larger than reality. That's true for fish, deer or wolves.

However, it looks to be about the same size as a full-body mount I saw in a gunstore in Detroit in 1963, so, yeah, allowing for the camera deal, it's about right.

According to a bunch of buzz here at and at THR wolf threads, a big male at around 150 is not rare.

Rembrandt
December 24, 2011, 08:00 PM
Those look about right.

Deja vu
December 24, 2011, 08:11 PM
pretty typical I think. he ones I have seen are about that size.

Blackops_2
December 24, 2011, 08:55 PM
I wanna kill one now not that we have them around here but i never though they were that big.

Ridgerunner665
December 24, 2011, 09:07 PM
I've only laid eyes on 1 wild wolf in my life....it was in Wisconsin a while back, feeding on a deer that had been hit by a car. It was right next to the road...


Yes...it was that big, at least 150 lbs.

stevelyn
December 25, 2011, 01:23 AM
On average they run about 100-120#. The ones in the pics look a bit bigger than that and are what i would consider exceptional.

SHNOMIDO
December 25, 2011, 03:49 AM
ive seen what Id call "city-wolves" walking down the sidewalk at about 3am here in the IL suburbs bordering on farmland.

happened about 3 times. Was probably the same fella all three times. He was a little guy, maybe 60 pounds if wolves run the same as dogs.

I gotta tell you, as a semi-city slicker, that scares the hell out of me! I didnt know they came that big!

warbirdlover
December 25, 2011, 05:21 AM
That one in the pics was an unusually large one shot in Idaho. The alpha males might occasionally get that big but that's not quit the norm. They still are some very large animals. We have a huge black alpha male on our land but it's not that big. It's chased deer right past some guys blinds during rifle deer season. I posted some pics of some of the smaller wolves taken by one of the bow hunters. Here is what a more typical wolf looks like.

taylorce1
December 25, 2011, 12:15 PM
My only experience with wolves was the one my buddy shot during our bear hunt in southeast Alaska last may. This was a young female around 75-80 lbs. My buddy that shot the wolf is 5'10" and 190 lbs.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r155/taylorce1/Alaska%202011/CIMG0148.jpg

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r155/taylorce1/Alaska%202011/P1000249.jpg

Shotgun693
December 25, 2011, 12:28 PM
Wolves have very distinct size variations. The big Canadian wolves are being brought in to 'repopulate' the Western States. You might wanna buy a bigger gun.

Buzzcook
December 25, 2011, 02:07 PM
I don't know how much those two animals weigh. But average is under 100lb.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2010/02/18/update-on-the-weight-of-wolves-shot-in-idaho-hunt/

The claims of 150lb wolves is right up there with 40lb trout. They're out there but not the norm.

Deja vu
December 25, 2011, 02:54 PM
Here in Idaho where the wolves have lots of elk/deer/sheep/calves to eat they get pretty big. I suspect in areas where there is less for them to eat they may not get as big.

Gbro
December 25, 2011, 04:48 PM
I have seen some very big wolves and then many smaller ones also.Of course these smaller ones were in the summer and some of the smallest were in Canada were we watched 3 that were chasing a deer that swam out into the lake we were fishing. The wolves couldn't follow the sent because it kept bringing them into the shore as the deer made good the escape
The wolf will look smaller in summer and I am dreaming of a picture with my smile in it some day also. :)

Colorado Redneck
December 26, 2011, 03:26 PM
Fast Facts:
Type:Mammal
Diet:Carnivore
Average life span in the wild:6 to 8 years
Size:Head and body, 36 to 63 in (91 to 160 cm); Tail, 13 to 20 in (33 to 51 cm)
Weight:40 to 175 lbs (18 to 79 kg)

The diet of newly introduced wolves in areas that are high elk populations probably allows them to reach their genetic size limitations.

jmr40
December 26, 2011, 04:24 PM
Those photo's look fake to me. I've killed a 260 lb bear that wasn't nearly as large as the animals in those photo's. No way I could have held my bear up that way to pose.

Alaska444
December 26, 2011, 04:47 PM
THe Idaho wolves are gorging on huge dinners of elk and deer with a few domestic pets thrown in the pile from time to time. Yes, 180 pounds is seen here officially.

COEUR d'ALENE - As the woman walked by the truck with the tailgate down, she glanced at what lay in the bed of the pickup parked outside Fish and Game's Coeur d'Alene headquarters.
Then, her eyes opened wide.
"Oh my God," she said.
It was the head and fur of what had been a massive wolf that Brett Pitcher shot Monday.
The 2002 Coeur d'Alene High School graduate got what he estimated was a 180-pound wolf in the St. Joe area.
"Really. I live there. I don't like that," the woman said Tuesday morning. "That's big."

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_1ae38b6f-0d8d-5529-8b53-03d5118ce217.html

Why do they get so big here in Idaho? First, this is the largest subspecies of wolf, the Canadian Mackenzie Valley Wolf. This is not the native canus lupus irremotus that they replaced. The native Idaho wolf was much smaller and had a different temperament.

Secondly, they have unlimited supply of game animals not yet depleted. Some studies document 47 elk killed per wolf. Add a number of deer and you see an amazing feast here in Idaho by these huge killers.

So to the question of faking the pictures? No, not by that documented by F&G for instance in the link above. Yes, that is a big wolf and that is what they can grow to be here in Idaho. It is an alien subspecies gone wild in an ungulate population that just can't cope with these giant killing machines. I have no doubt that those photos are quite real.

Here is another set of pictures of the wolf from CDA above. Yes, that is a big wolf!!

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2010/02/24/idaho-panhandle-man-bags-first-wolf/

warbirdlover
December 27, 2011, 12:04 AM
Those photo's look fake to me. I've killed a 260 lb bear that wasn't nearly as large as the animals in those photo's. No way I could have held my bear up that way to pose.

Those aren't fake photos. Those were in a major hunting magazine that I have somewhere laying around the house. They named the hunter and gave the story of it.

Deja vu
December 27, 2011, 09:46 AM
If you see wolves in a zoo they are usually well fed and very big, wolves in Idaho are nearly as well fed and they get exercise to build muscle mass. They are naturally going to tend toward the larger end of the species

Skadoosh
December 27, 2011, 10:09 AM
I think they are just big boned up there from radiation accidents at all those Idaho nuke labs.

Blackops_2
December 27, 2011, 10:22 AM
I wonder if the elk/deer population in these places are taking a big hit. Regular size wolves alone feed on elk, these look as though one or two would have no problem taking down a full size elk.

Double Naught Spy
December 27, 2011, 10:50 AM
Is this normal size for a wolf?
LOL, my dog looks about 50% larger too with her winter coat. Look how much the guy's arms sink into the coat such that the arm wrapped around the wolf doesn't actually appear to be wider than the circumference of the rest of the wolf's coat.

THe Idaho wolves are gorging on huge dinners of elk and deer with a few domestic pets thrown in the pile from time to time. Yes, 180 pounds is seen here officially.

Wow A444, that is really amazing. Your "official" record seems to be from a hunter's boastful estimate to a reporter and not actually from any official source. Now I realize that no hunter has ever overstated the size of his kill and that like fishermen, can be counted on to provide absolutely unbiased and accurate results. However, if he really did have a 180 lb. MacKenzie Valley gray wolf, he would have the new record given that the record is 175 lbs. and was from a wolf taken in Alaska more than 80 years ago in 1939.
http://www.californiawolfcenter.org/learn/wolf-facts/
http://www.cosmosmith.com/mackenzie_valley_wolves.asp

But hey, if you have access to "official" records that indicate that the wolves in Idaho are bigger than the previously held record, please share them with us. An unweighed and unconfirmed boastful estimate from a hunter to a newspaper reporter doesn't actually count.

It’s not surprising that wolf weights get exaggerated, said Jim Hayden, Fish and Game’s regional wildlife manager in Coeur d’Alene.

“They look huge,” he said. “They’ve got long legs, big heads and lots of fur.”
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/

---------------
Those aren't fake photos. Those were in a major hunting magazine that I have somewhere laying around the house. They named the hunter and gave the story of it.

Oh please do share with us the name, year, and month of the major magazine with the pictures. Based on the internet postings, that wolf gets killed a lot, new every year since 2009 and has been killed in Idaho (generic state listing), Yellowstone, Sun Valley, Montana, Manitoba, and Alberta. Most of the posts have the wolf being from Canada and not the US.

Funny how the hunter who supposedly shot this now famous record 197, 230, 230+, or 235 lb. wolf, or his guide that was supposedly along at the time, didn't think to get the kill confirmed by any officials despite knowing it was a record. Most hunters would be extremely pleased to have their name associated with the largetst known wolf kill, and yet this hunter doesn't. Odd.

Oh wait, maybe there is no clear cut story, no famous hunter, no single weight or location, and no official record because the image and information are hoaxed?
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005139271

Blackops_2
December 27, 2011, 10:56 AM
Well damn lol :o

Alaska444
December 27, 2011, 11:05 AM
Hey, DNS, wow, over the top man. No response needed. LOL

Art Eatman
December 27, 2011, 06:19 PM
Lordy, DNS, take a valium, okay? It'll still hurt, but you won't care. :D

Double Naught Spy
December 27, 2011, 06:52 PM
Somebody had to put a silver bullet through the heart of the internet wolves before they completed their full transformation into 500 lb. monster werewolves that would kill us all.

Blackops_2
December 27, 2011, 07:37 PM
Winchester used to make ballistic silver tips with actual silver on them :D

Art Eatman
December 27, 2011, 11:29 PM
Watched part of a TV show about Yellowstone, this evening. Showed a pack of some 16 wolves and some chase scenes. I'd guesstimate that on average they were in the 100- to 120-pound range. Statement of two elk kills per week for the pack, which to me seems a bit light...

warbirdlover
December 27, 2011, 11:52 PM
This is some good info on the Wisconsin wolf population....

http://dnr.wi.gov/news/dnrnews_article_lookup.asp?id=1993

Here's a real dandy one!...

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/wolf/livingwithwolves.htm

Then there is this paper...

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

All good reading.

Irish B
January 15, 2012, 07:36 PM
I did one of my veterinary internships at a wolf refuge center. Males realistically get around 110 lbs with the biggest I worked with being an old male Arctic/grey hybrid who was almost 160. He was a monster. Keep in mind a 150 lbs wolf is significantly larger than a 150 lbs dog as wolf's are much less dense. They have a lighter bone structure and are built for hunting and running up to 100 miles in a day. A big male wolf can cause a lot of damage though. We used to get road kill deer and elk that we would give to the wolves and the big males could pick up an elk carcass that I had trouble dragging in and carry it off like it was nothing. The largest wolf in north America was recorded at 175 lbs whereas the largest wolf in the world was recorded at 190 lbs. Keep in mind a 190 lbs wolf would be significantly larger than a 250 lbs mastiff

12GaugeShuggoth
January 17, 2012, 02:06 PM
:eek: Holy crap I'm glad we don't have those beasts here. I've seen one wolf here but he wasn't any where near that large. For a size comparison though he was still quite a bit larger than our neighbors' 100lb. boxer....then again the boxer doesn't have that big fluffy coat of fur.

frigate88
January 18, 2012, 10:40 AM
Dang it guys, you keep shooting these big wolves and there isnt going to be another twilight saga! :D

FairWarning
January 19, 2012, 05:33 PM
LOL the first few are fakes. If you've ever seen a 450 lb, 9 ft long lion "hug" its trainer, it looks about as big as the wolves in those pics.

North American wolves typically don't get much bigger than 170 lbs. Look at the proportions of the wolf heads to the men-----bogus.

warbirdlover
January 19, 2012, 08:38 PM
That is NOT a bogus picture! It was a article in a hunting/gun magazine and gave the full story on it. The pics might have been taken to exagerate the size but I've got the magazine somewhere laying around here. See what snopes has to say. Basically that those ARE wolves but that they were not shot in Idaho.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/idwolves.asp

:)

Double Naught Spy
January 19, 2012, 08:58 PM
That is NOT a bogus picture! It was a article in a hunting/gun magazine and gave the full story on it. The pics might have been taken to exagerate the size but I've got the magazine somewhere laying around here.

It has been nearly a month and you still haven't found that magazine? LOL.

Alaska444
January 19, 2012, 09:10 PM
Doesn't matter if shot in Idaho or not. They are the Canadian Mackenzie Valley wolf subspecies that is substantially bigger than the native canis lupis irremotis that was the primary subspecies in America. The transplanted wolf from the north is larger and more aggressive than the native wolf and we have been sold a bogus argument and a bogus wolf by the Feds. Yes, those critters are huge compared to what the eco folks would like you to know.

warbirdlover
January 19, 2012, 11:16 PM
It has been nearly a month and you still haven't found that magazine? LOL.

I haven't been looking very hard... :D

In any case, the snoops link I put up says they aren't Idaho wolves but they ARE wolves.

Catfishman
January 20, 2012, 12:08 AM
To me, they look way too large. I suspect photoshop.

But what do I know, I live in Dixie and have never killed a coyote over 35 lbs.

Sure Shot Mc Gee
January 20, 2012, 12:32 AM
Being I hunt in Northern Minnesota I've seen some pretty large Timber Wolves over the past 10 yrs. Because of their being protected by law here. No one can shoot, trap or inhibit their life style of taking other wild game. Even if the slaughter / killing event is taking place within your line of sight. Your only option, is to do nothing.-- If a human/hunter is on the ground all alone back in the woods and a pack of 4-5 Timber Wolves or more comes along within 100 yards of where your standing. Probably chasing a deer that's wounded or a Buck tired and worn out because of the rut? " I guarantee if you find yourself in that scenario. The hair on the back of your neck will rise and your hearts beat will thump harder & faster than anytime other time in your life!"--Without thinking? you'll be counting how many rifle shells you have along or in your pocket?-- Because the stress this event places on you due in part because of the NOISE those BIG dogs make while driving their query into exhaustion.-- I've been in battle while Serving my Country and I have never felt threatened like the way I did when I encountered my first pack of Timber Wolves. Their coming thru the woods on a run driving there prey past me not more than 75 feet from where I was standing. Uf Da!! >Pushing a BIG 10 point deer just out ahead of them. The experience has never left me.-- They say: Time, for the most part will heal bad events in one's memory. <--->I'm not so sure about that?

cheyenne'sfinest
January 20, 2012, 01:06 AM
they vary from region to region, but around yellowstone where i'm at that's an average sized wolf

FairWarning
January 20, 2012, 01:33 AM
This thread is funny.

Look closely at the texture and lighting of the pictures, particularly where the wolves' fur meets up with the men.

What are they claiming those wolves weigh and how long are they supposed to be? Assuming those men are in the 200 lb range, those creatures would be at least close to 300 lbs, which brings up another point: to casually hold up 300lbs of dead weight, which is more difficult to stablize than a conscious being, and grin for the camera no less, would mean those guys have body builder levels of strength. Look at them. Do you think they are that strong? :o

Tightwad
January 20, 2012, 06:18 AM
As stated the current NA record is 175 lb. To the best of my knowledge in North America their has only been one confirmed unprovoked fatal attack on a human by wolves in the last 100 years.

I wouldnt put 200+ lb wolves beyond the realm of possibility. How many of you have seen a whitetail that field dressed over 400 lb? (Possibly over 500 lb live weight) Yet such animals have been certified by fish and game departments.

Double Naught Spy
January 20, 2012, 08:38 AM
In any case, the snoops link I put up says they aren't Idaho wolves but they ARE wolves.

LOL, nobody was questioning if the pictures were of wolves or not. However, to be properly accurate, only half of them are wolves.

TX Hunter
January 20, 2012, 08:52 AM
I Coonhunt with Hounds, and am often asked what do I do with the Coons ?
So now I get to ask the question, if you hunt Wolfe, or Cyote what do you do with the carcass after you shoot it ?:)

warbirdlover
January 20, 2012, 12:40 PM
Well, I've had wolves run past my blind, a big black alpha male. I think some of you guys would be pretty impressed by the size of it. However, most of the wolves on our land are around this size....

The pic of this young one was taken by one of the bowhunters on the land a few years ago (about the size of a large German Shepherd) ....

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=77797&stc=1&d=1327081155

Irish B
January 20, 2012, 04:28 PM
Here are some pics from when I did one of my vet internships at the wolf center. These are all full blooded grey wolves.

Me with a female. She's about 75 lbs:
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/394/29609210150333236834487.jpg

This pic is with my wife. The young male here is about 95 lbs:
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/678/31855910150333236819487.jpg

Me with a male. He's about 115 lbs. This is the average size for an adult male grey wolf:
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/2544/31492310150333236844487.jpg

Me with the black male and female again:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/2065/30691110150333236849487.jpg

rickyrick
January 20, 2012, 04:51 PM
Those are beautiful animals.

warbirdlover
January 20, 2012, 05:09 PM
What/Where is the "wolf center"? Very interesting! :p

FairWarning
January 20, 2012, 08:58 PM
Those are beautiful animals.

They sure are! I want to go to a place like that one day.

Irish B
January 21, 2012, 03:01 AM
It's here in CO. It's a place where wolves that were pets or were ambassadors or things like that can come to 'retire' and to help educate the public. It was a lot of fun.

Sure Shot Mc Gee
January 23, 2012, 09:07 PM
Wolves size? Don't let size fool you. They are the toughest and most respected wild thing in the woods. They look somewhat like a Siberian Husky with a straight tail. But exhibit more intelligence than most any other domestic dog species. Only the toughest and smartest of a pack are allowed to mate which helps the breed immensely. The earlier pix of those really BIG dogs being held up by their hunters are bogus. The photos of the gal knelt down petting a big penned up black male are real. The medium size gray dog crossing the road is a real good photo of one too. If by accident A Gray gets shot back in the woods? If the animal wasn't shot on private property? it's left for the ravens. Coyote hides on the other hand are not against the law to keep. Being caught by a DNR warden with a Gray wolfs fur/hide in private hands can get someone in Minnesota a 90 day stay in jail up to a $10,000.00 Federal fine and He may also be facing State charges with a good possibility or loss of hunting privileges for a year or two added on. Most hunters in MN would prefer Gray wolves to have been introduced else-where's in the USA to save the species from extinction.

warbirdlover
January 23, 2012, 10:39 PM
Most hunters in MN would prefer Gray wolves to have been introduced else-where's in the USA to save the species from extinction.

Yeah. Like Wisconsin. :mad:

Alaska444
January 23, 2012, 11:02 PM
LOL, everyone is accepting the pictures in post #46. Simply take that for verbatim truth, no reason to doubt that post and the fact that the female wolf is stated to be about 75 pounds.

Let's now take that wolf whose hind legs are almost as long as the mans and the front paws which are longer his arms and extrapolate to a wolf in the 140-150 pound range which is what many of these alpha males weigh with them as large as 175 officially and unofficial accounts of wolves as much as 210 pounds and imagine the wolf in the picture standing on her hind legs as double her weight.

I would venture such a wolf would be exactly what we see in the opening post. Once again, that 75 pound wolf is essentially as tall as the man if she would have had her head up instead of snuggling in on him. That is a SMALL wolf. Wait till you see one that is twice that size which is within the reported range for these critters. Post 46 says it all. These are huge, fast, and ferocious beasts that come in packs up to 20 or more. That is a real game changer in these woods.

Alaska444
January 23, 2012, 11:36 PM
Scroll down a little more than half way on the right to see Stryker, a 140 pound malamute. Admittedly, NOT a wolf, but it is a 140 wolf-like dog for sure. It is a HUGE mut to say the least and validates what a 140 pound wolf would look like in a picture.

http://www.hudsonshuskies.com/

Now if you folks say that wolves don't get to 140 pounds, then not much I can say. I believe the photos in the OP are real and why not. They are in the same size range as the 140 pound Malamute in the link above. Maybe that is a fake picture as well!!

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 04:11 AM
As I've said before I've got a hunting magazine laying around here that I can't find that has a whole big article on those wolves, who shot them, all the details with those same pics. It would seem kind of irresponsible to put that in a well respected magazine if it were not fact. I've got a couple more places to search but I'm now determined to find it. If that is in fact a fake, the publisher of this magazine will be put up into this forum for you all to tear him apart. :D

Art Eatman
January 24, 2012, 09:55 AM
I forget the "why", but on a Sunday back some fifty years ago I walked past the Silverwolf gun store in Detroit. There was a full-body mount of a wolf in the window. What really caught my attention was the size of the forelegs; as big as my arms, and that was back when I was young and healthy. At the time, I guesstimated a weight of somewhere around 150 pounds.

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 03:10 PM
LOL the first few are fakes. If you've ever seen a 450 lb, 9 ft long lion "hug" its trainer, it looks about as big as the wolves in those pics.

North American wolves typically don't get much bigger than 170 lbs. Look at the proportions of the wolf heads to the men-----bogus.

WRONG!!!

I FOUND it!!

Magazine was "Big Buck" fall edition Vol. 23 No. 2 2009

Article "Potential World Record Wolf" by Jeff Grimolfson

Weight claimed 197 lbs.

Location Glenevis, Alberta

The pictures at the start of this post are from his article.

He's got it on vidocamera and it aired on "The Hunting Chronicles" on "Wild TV"

www.grimsmonstermix.com website

Wyoredman
January 24, 2012, 04:44 PM
To all of the doubters: Do a google search for Wyoming Wolf Kill pictures and take a look. Just because you have not seen one of the huge beasts, doesn't mean they aren't out there.

Alaska444
January 24, 2012, 05:47 PM
No they must be photoshopped fakes. They couldn't be real and be that big. Don't you know that wolves are just friendly little dogs that people are so mean to and persecute them without any cause. LOL

Double Naught Spy
January 24, 2012, 07:22 PM
WRONG!!!

I FOUND it!!

Magazine was "Big Buck" fall edition Vol. 23 No. 2 2009

Article "Potential World Record Wolf" by Jeff Grimolfson

Weight claimed 197 lbs.

Location Glenevis, Alberta

Very good! Glad you found it. The title of the article is apt. It has been over 2 years since this wolf was shot and yet there apparently are no official records verifying its weight, or not that I can find. There are no news accounts and no mention through various Canadian and US wildlife/environmental agencies, wildlife organizations, or confirmations by hunting organizations. At 197 lbs., a new world record for the gray wolf, you would think that "The Hunting Chronicles" would be playing up the hunt episode. It isn't often that such a program actually catches the hunter in action killing a world record sized animal. "The Hunting Chronicles" isn't doing anything with such historical footage and the event isn't even mentioned on their website. Why do you think that the only claims of this wolf being so heavy come from hunting rags, blogs, and forum postings? Why don't you think there is any sort of official record for it. I know I haven't found any and nobody else has reported any sort of official record listing either.

This really reminds me of the previous supposed world record Bulgarian wolf that was killed in 2007. It was reported to be 80 kg. (176.4 lbs), eclipsing the 175 lb. Alaskan record for gray wolves. Reports of its record status were noted wildly on the internet, but when attempts were made to verify the claim, it fell well short of the record weight.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/175081/biggest-wolf-on-record-shot-dead-report
http://www.strangeark.com/blog/2007/01/bulgarian-wolf-not-record.html

So now this Canadian Gray Wolf is supposed to be the new record, and not just North American either, but would be the new world record for gray wolves.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof and that doesn't seem to exist with the wolf shown in the OP.

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 07:43 PM
They don't go by weight for the world record but by the skull size. Last known the skull was waiting a drying period and then was to be measured. Go in the link to the website of the guy who shot it (in my last post). It gives should give some info in there (but doesn't).

I've also found these pictures and stories blown all out of proportion and where it was shot. It now weighs 235 lbs. and is growing!! And it was shot in 2011 instead of 2009. :D

http://www.grimsmonstermix.com/

And since the timing is right...

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/thegrey/

Double Naught Spy
January 24, 2012, 07:59 PM
You keep posting a link for an animal attractant product. If you go to the wolf picture, you don't get any information. The link is broken.

http://www.grimsmonstermix.com/images/gallery/p9.jpg

Go in the link to the website of the guy who shot it (in my last post).

Okay, here is your last post. The only link you provide is to the attractant.

WRONG!!!

I FOUND it!!

Magazine was "Big Buck" fall edition Vol. 23 No. 2 2009

Article "Potential World Record Wolf" by Jeff Grimolfson

Weight claimed 197 lbs.

Location Glenevis, Alberta

The pictures at the start of this post are from his article.

He's got it on vidocamera and it aired on "The Hunting Chronicles" on "Wild TV"

www.grimsmonstermix.com website

I don't see where in any of your posts that there is a link to the guy who shot the supposed record weight wolf.

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 08:09 PM
There is a gallery with the guy's pic with the wolf but the large pic is not there. But it IS the guy who shot it and it DOES mention the fact. The outfit ALSO sells an attractant and also offers guide services.

Write the guy bitching about it. Don't tell me! :o

http://www.grimsmonstermix.com/gallery.htm

Have a question? Tell us what you think about Grim's Monster Mix and Bear Bait In A Bucket. White Claw Outfitters want to hear from you!

White Claw Outfitters
21-540-30 Range Road 274
T7X 3S9
Spruce Grove, Alberta

Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 339
Glenevis, Alberta
T0E 0X0

tel. (780) 983 8224
sales@grimsmonstermix.com

Jeff Grimolfson Owner/Operator

(Jim Johnston is the guy who shot the wolf)

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 08:19 PM
And I guess I need to put this in here.....

No, you don't need to put them in here. Those images are copyrighted materials.

Please review TFL's copyrighted materials policy, found on the rules page.

Irish B
January 24, 2012, 08:20 PM
Thank you for assuring everyone that my pictures are real. I am 6'. That little female can look me face to face when she stands up tall. The big 90 lbs black male stands 7' tall. He can and does put his paws on my shoulders and look over the top of my head. I can give my professional opinion on wolf size for what it's worth. I did a thesis on wolf reintroduction in the us but more specifically the genetic mutations.and human interactions causing larger wolves. Let me be clear the largest wolf ever recorded in the us was around 175 lbs. This is the largest confirmed report. I am inclined to believe that there are larger wolves out there due to a constant genetic mutations causing larger wolves but that has never been confirmed. This is based on the fact that I've worked with males in captivity pushing upwards of 160 lbs. The thing is these old males were more well fed than physically massive like the wolves in question from the op. This leads me to believe that a lot of those pictures are either photoshoped or perspective picture, you know the ones where the African lion looks 900lbs. All the wolves pushing upwards of 160 lbs and more were big slow wolves. They would be inefficient as hunters in the wild. Although we do know that the alpha males and females don't always lead the hunt but pick the most athletic wolves to hunt though this is uncommon. Like I said before people don't really understand wolf size vs weight. That black was only 90 lbs but stands 7' tall. Although he doesn't look it in the picture, the 120 lbs male is massive. He's a huge male in his prime. Also having worked a bit with the local zoo I can tell you the average male wolf in his prime is considerably beefier than the average mountain lion, the exception being big male cats. The 165 lbs Arctic timber hundred was MASSIVE. I have no pictures with him because cameras weren't allowed in his enclosure due to his tendency to turn anything on your belt or in your hands into a wolf treat! As for the wolf hunting issue I can't say I'd ever hunt a wolf but I'm not against it. Capstick himself as well as studies have proven when you allow responsible hunting it prevents over poaching. When a predator is completely protected it has no value to the people of the land. Farmers either kill the animal itself or hire poachers to kill the animal. When hunting is allowed it not only brings money and tourism into an area it controls the population, keeping farmers from killing ever predator they see. Besides in this day and age the us government would never allow an animal to be hunted to endangered status.

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 08:21 PM
And the final page....

Irish B
January 24, 2012, 08:24 PM
Birdlover the wolf on the left in picture 2 looks perfectly real and not really unusually large. I would guess him to be around 140 lbs. The picture on the right just looks like a camera angle. . .but if there was a wolf that weighed in at a confirmed 190 lbs they probably would have heard about it in the scientific community and since all the biologists, wolf experts, wolf rehabilitators, wildlife veterinarians I've consulted with in doing my little report and all the biological journals I could dig up that had to do with wolf size, size progression, and genetic mutation in the past 50 years only spoke of a confirmed 175 lbs wolf I'm going to go with that. In the zoological community it isn't fact unless it's published in a scientific journal and every serious factual zoological discovery that is backed by conclusive evidence is published in a scientific journal :)

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 08:30 PM
Birdlover the wolf on the left in picture 2 looks perfectly real and not really unusually large. I would guess him to be around 140 lbs. The picture on the right just looks like a camera angle.

Irish B

I cannot comment on the weight, and I know nothing about photomanipulation etc. I only put this article in to show it WAS a real wolf in the pics and shot in Canada. They say the weight was 197 lbs. And I think you are correct that they are making the animal "look" bigger by the angles etc they are taking the pics at.... like we all do when we get a huge buck!

We should elect someone to contact the guys at the website and see what they say and what details they might provide. You would be the perfect guy to do it with your experience! :) Seriously!!

Double Naught Spy
January 24, 2012, 08:31 PM
There is a gallery with the guy's pic with the wolf but the large pic is not there. But it IS the guy who shot it and it DOES mention the fact. The outfit ALSO sells an attractant and also offers guide services.

Write the guy bitching about it. Don't tell me!

Despite your language, what you are telling me is that all the information you are saying is true/accurate is from this website which does not have the information, just a thumbnail picture we have already seen countless times and to not blame you, but blame the guy at the website because you could not otherwise come up with the information?

It seems that just about everything about this story has been changed or misrepresented and salient informaiton on the story is quite dubious. Now, even the links to the information don't exist.

So much for the extraordinary proof.

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 08:35 PM
Despite your language, what you are telling me is that all the information you are saying is true/accurate is from this website which does not have the information, just a thumbnail picture we have already seen countless times and to not blame you, but blame the guy at the website because you could not otherwise come up with the information?

So much for the extraordinary proof.

What I SAID was there was an article in a legitimate hunting magazine about this wolf. And here it is. I said nothing about whether it was accurate or not. How the heck would I know? Geesh.

Make your own conclusions. I'm all done with this thread. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Buzzcook
January 24, 2012, 08:36 PM
Now if you folks say that wolves don't get to 140 pounds, then not much I can say.

So who in this thread has denied that wolves grow to 140 or more pounds?

If you'll read the thread title it says, Is this normal size for a wolf?, that is where the controversy lays.

What you've done is create a strawman or you're just not very good at snark.

Irish B
January 24, 2012, 08:40 PM
Edited my post up there and added some stuff. No one is blaming you just can't always believe the stuff on the internet. Like how it's floating around that wolves have a bite force of over 1500 psi when in actuality the only real study done confirmed them at 421 psi (compared to a German Shepard which has a bite force of 230)

Double Naught Spy
January 24, 2012, 08:43 PM
What I SAID was there was an article in a legitimate hunting magazine about this wolf. And here it is. I said nothing about whether it was accurate or not. How the heck would I know? Geesh.

Yeah, and it was written by the guide (not the hunter as you claimed) with no outside confirmation.

By the way, great violation of copyright laws on posting the article illegally.

Irish B
January 24, 2012, 08:50 PM
Actually I contacted several sources that claimed they had shot or killed a world record wolf. Not one could provide me with actual proof. I either got no response or bogus responses. I know if I shot a world record wolf the first thing I'd do is have it officially weighed. I know most of you would do the exact same thing.

Alaska444
January 24, 2012, 10:14 PM
That isn't the question either. If it is or isn't a world record is not the issue. Whether that is a real picture and how big wolves CAN get is the real issue. I believe we have enough to say it is a real picture, a real wolf and yes, those suckers get BIG. Irish B noted a 95 pound wolf that could put its legs on his shoulders and stood at 7 feet on hind legs. No one dismisses the facts of a 140 pound wolf which we would all agree is a BIG wolf. I found a picture of a 140 pound Malamute, admittedly a bit different than a wolf, but it gives a fair comparison a few threads back.

We are also not talking about the AVERAGE sized wolf which may be in the 100-120 pound range. Even there, Irish B stated how BIG the 120 pound wolf was. These are not small critters.

Secondly, they don't belong here in Idaho and it is a fraud that the FEDs have sold us that they are the same critter. Yes, Great Danes and those little yapping creatures are the same species, but they are as different as night and day. Same thing with the Mackenzie Valley Canadian wolf and the native Idaho wolf. Same species but still distinctly different.

warbirdlover
January 24, 2012, 10:43 PM
Yeah, and it was written by the guide (not the hunter as you claimed) with no outside confirmation.

By the way, great violation of copyright laws on posting the article illegally.

Double Naught Spy

Well if you could comprehend what was written you'd know that the hunter and the guy that took the pictures and wrote the article was NOT the guide. They are both members of the same "team". But you were right that I shouldn't have posted the article. I just did it for those who couldn't follow the links.

:rolleyes:

Double Naught Spy
January 24, 2012, 11:45 PM
Last known the skull was waiting a drying period and then was to be measured. Go in the link to the website of the guy who shot it (in my last post). It gives should give some info in there (but doesn't).

Let's see, the wolf was shot in May of 2009. By January of 2010, reports on the internet say that the skull skull drying.
http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=331468

Two years have passed since then. Two years are not required to dry a skull. Where is all the publicity and announcements about how this is a world record sized wolf or even close to being a world record? Do you think that given the lack of independently confirmed data (exclusive from what is reported by the guide and hunter) that maybe the wolf isn't as claimed? This, despite having more than enough time, years in fact, to get information such as weight and external measurements and then to properly render the skull for measurement. Do you think that they are hiding the record for some reason?

Alaska444
January 24, 2012, 11:45 PM
Dear warbirdlover,

I had no problems opening the links and I appreciate the work you went through finding them. They look like legitimate pictures on a copyrighted website that I doubt would deliberately post a hoax, not that folks haven't done that even to big publishers like the NYT etc., but it looks like it is good stuff so to speak.

I think the issue is really settled, but some folks ain't going to believe what ever you post. The word from folks in the woods in Idaho is that these are huge beasts that don't belong up in Idaho. One look at the pictures is enough to show why.

Thank you again for all of the trouble you went through bringing that article to us.

God bless, Alaska444

warbirdlover
January 25, 2012, 12:18 AM
Yeah, I guess everyone's made their points and we'll just leave it at that. Most of it was interesting and fun. One day I'll get a pic of that big black alpha wolf chasing a deer by me!! :D

Irish B
January 25, 2012, 12:29 AM
Alaska is absolutely correct. The wolves that were introduced into Yellowstone were a completely different subspecies. Different subspecies have distinctly different size ranges but more importantly temperaments. This drastically changes the ecosystem in that environment. The larger more predatory wolves obviously have a larger impact on prey species. Interestingly enough though the wolves in Yellowstone have had a positive effect. The elk were and still are very overpopulated in some areas causing severe distruction to the plant life. When the wolves were introduced it culled the elk population. This in turn caused vegetation to make a come back and we smaller wildlife such as beavers and birds thriving. Elk are a far more distructive species than wolves are. To the environment that is. Also studies have found that grizzly populations have actually increased since the introduction of wolves in yellowstone when antiwolf advocates said the opposite would happen. This is because grizzlies are scavenging kills from wolves. Because of this more grizzly cubs are coming of age.

Spy I think it's very clear why the giant wolf hasn't been released to the public. It's a government cover up! It's clearly a genetically altered werewolf!

Art Eatman
January 25, 2012, 08:38 AM
Circles. Dizzy spells. Sagging horse...