OPINION

The Future of North American Wolves, Interview with Dr. Valerius Geist

James Swan | August 14, 2013

All across North America, efforts are underway to restore wolf populations. Much of the press has painted a rosy picture of co-existing with wolves. For another opinion, I talked with ethologist Dr. Valerius Geist. Val has published 17 books on wildlife and large mammals (humans included) and served 27 years as a professor at the University of Calgary.

During some 50 years in the field, he had observed wolves on many occasions. “My early experiences with mainland wolves indicated that they were inquisitive, intelligent, but shy and cautious. During my academic career and four years into retirement I thought of wolves as harmless, echoing the words of many North American colleagues. I was wrong!”

He changed his mind when he retired to Vancouver Island in 1995, where he and his wife found themselves living with wolves as neighbors. He relayed some of his first-hand experience with them to me:

"The meadows and forests near our home contained about 120 blacktail deer and half a dozen large male black bears. In winter came some 60 to 80 trumpeter swans, large flocks of Canada geese, widgeons, mallards, and green-winged teal. Pheasants and ruffed grouse were not uncommon. In the fall of 1995 I saw one track of a lone wolf. Then in January 1999 my son and I tracked a pair of wolves in the snow. A pack arrived that summer. Within three months not a deer was to be seen, or tracked, in these meadows–even during the rut. We saw deer at night huddling against barns and houses, where deer had not been seen previously. For the first time deer moved into our garden and around our house. The damage to our fruit trees and roses skyrocketed. The trumpeter swans left. The tame geese and ducks avoided the outer meadows and lived only close to the barns. Pheasants and ruffed grouse vanished. The landscape looked empty, as if vacuumed of wildlife."

Eventually the wolves became even more of a problem. Geist explains: “These wolves progressively became bolder, seeking out human habitation, killing and maiming pets and livestock, and inspecting and confronting humans. No attacks on humans materialized by ‘our’ wolves after they began approaching us, for they were shot. A predator control officer trapped others.”

After the first “misbehavin’ pack” was eliminated, a second one moved into the area a couple years later, and a similar pattern unfolded. Geist found the behavior of both packs followed a similar seven-stage habituation pattern when wild food runs out and they are close to people.

1. Within the pack’s territory prey becomes scarce not only due to increased predation on native prey animals, but also by the prey evacuating home ranges en masse. Wolves increasingly visit garbage dumps at night.

2. Wolves in search of food begin to approach human habitations at night. Their presence is announced by frequent and loud barking of farm dogs.

3. The wolves appear in daylight and at some distance observe people doing their daily chores.

4. Small-bodied livestock and pets are attacked close to buildings, even during the day. The wolves preferentially pick on dogs and follow them right up to the verandas of homes. People out with dogs find themselves defending their dogs against wolves.

5. The wolves explore large livestock, leading to docked tails, slit ears, and hocks. Livestock may bolt through fences running for safety. Wolves become more brazen and cattle or horses may be killed close to houses and barns. Wolves may follow riders and surround them. They may mount verandas and look into windows.

6. Wolves turn their attention to people and approach, initially merely examining them closely. They may make hesitant, almost playful attacks, biting and tearing clothing, nipping at limbs and torso. They withdraw when confronted. They defend kills by moving towards people and growling and barking at them from 10 to 20 paces away.

7. Wolves attack people. These initial attacks are clumsy, as the wolves have not yet learned how to take down the new prey efficiently. Persons attacked can often escape because of the clumsiness of the attacks. A mature, courageous man may beat off or strangle an attacking wolf. However, against a wolf pack there is no defense.

Val met Dr. Robert Timm at the University of California at Davis, who has been studying coyotes targeting children in urban parks that act in virtually the same manner.

Geist’s habituation model has been translated into Swedish, Finnish, and German. It has become known in Finland as “Seven Steps to Heaven.”

“A century ago North America’s wildlife was largely decimated and that it took a lot of effort to bring wildlife back. When predators are scarce, and herbivores are abundant, wolves are well-fed. Consequently they are very large in body size, but also very shy of people. Wolves are seen rarely under such conditions, fostering the romantic image of wolves prevalent in North America today. However, when herbivore numbers decline while wolf numbers rise, we expect wolves to disperse and begin exploring for new prey. That’s when trouble begins,” Geist says.

Former Alaska wildlife biologist Mark McNay and others have established that there have been wolf attacks on people in Canada, historical and recent. On November 8, 2005, a 22-year-old geological engineering student at the University of Waterloo, Kenton Joel Carnegie, was killed by four wolves at Points North Landing in northern Saskatchewan. This was the first direct human fatality from a healthy wolf attack in North America in recent times to receive an investigation. Geist was an expert witness in the inquisition. Val says that the four wolves that attacked Carnegie had long been observed by others, were garbage-fed, and four days earlier attacked two employees of the camp who beat back the wolves.

Candice Berner, a 32-year-old school teacher, was killed on March 8, 2010 by wolves in the village of Chignik Lake on the Alaska Peninsula. These wolves were also habituated to garbage.

Val says that wolves learn differently than dogs:

"They learn by observing, and they also are insight learners. They can solve problems by observing, such as how to unlock a gate. In some studies of captive wolves researchers have found that wolves and coyotes not only learn to open their own cages, but those of others. With these intelligence traits wolves also develop an ability to assess the vulnerability of prey. For example, the sight of a human, walking boldly and carrying a firearm, will give them enough information to know that the potential prey is not vulnerable."

How did North American scientists ever conclude that wolves were no threat to people? Geist responds:

"They were unaware that starting in the 1800s, tens of thousands of trappers in Canada and Alaska were killing every wolf they could, legally and illegally, while predator control officers also removed wolves. Aerial poisoning and shooting campaigns were carried out and wolves were free to be killed by anybody. Little wonder wolves were scarce, very shy, attacks on people unheard of, livestock losses minimal, and wolf-borne diseases virtually escaped notice. In the absence of personal experience, they chose to disregard the accumulated experience of others from Asia and Europe."

I asked Val to look into his crystal ball and predict what he saw as the future fate of wolves for North America.

He said that wolves throughout North America will come into contact with millions of coyotes and feral dogs–the numbers of which are much higher than any previous time in history. The wolves will kill some of the dogs and coyotes, but others will breed resulting in hybrids. In short, pure-bred wolves in the wild will become a thing of the past.

His second prediction was on hydatid disease:

"The most important thing about the fate of wolves is hydatid disease. The threat scenario involves ranch dogs feasting on gut piles left by hunters or winter-killed elk and deer whose lungs and liver are infected with hydatid cysts. Deer and elk infected with cysts try to crowd in on private ranches trying to get away from wolves. A ranch dog gulping down the cysts will have mature tape worms in his gut within seven weeks or so and will then pass the deadly eggs in the ranch yard, kennel, veranda, and so on. People will bring infective eggs on their shoes into the house. Carpets and furniture will soon be hosting live, infective hydatid eggs. Children will be specially affected. Cysts take about a decade to mature. I will take at least another decade for cysts to grow to orange or grapefruit size in people. Nobody is facing up to the disease threat."

He added, “I do not think wolves have a happy future in the Lower 48.”

Copyright © 2013 OutdoorHub

As with many so called wolf experts there training and experience was based on unrealistic assumptions.

That wolves would only live in large wilderness areas and the unrealistic environment of isle royal national park.

They had no real life experience with wolves living in close proximately to humans. They disregarded the old stories of wolves killing for fun attacking humans and being dangerous.

As old wives tales because it didn't meet with their agenda to reintroduce wolves. As this Dr. is finding out his assumptions about wolves were wrong.

I give him credit for admitting it.

quote:

How did North American scientists ever conclude that wolves were no threat to people? Geist responds:"They were unaware that starting in the 1800s, tens of thousands of trappers in Canada and Alaska were killing every wolf they could, legally and illegally, while predator control officers also removed wolves. Aerial poisoning and shooting campaigns were carried out and wolves were free to be killed by anybody. Little wonder wolves were scarce, very shy, attacks on people unheard of, livestock losses minimal, and wolf-borne diseases virtually escaped notice. In the absence of personal experience, they chose to disregard the accumulated experience of others from Asia and Europe."

It is my contention that they were very aware of such things.

But on propose chose to disregard them because it did not meet their pro wolf, anti human, anti hunting, pro environmental WAKO agenda.

While I am not in favor of any species becoming extinct, wolves had their place in the system at one point in time in North America, before the proliferation of humans continent wide. They are simply to effective and to adaptable as a predator. If measures are not taken to find effective control methods, I believe, and I could be wrong but from the evidence that has been gathered after the re-introductions started I may not be that far off, but I feel/believe that wolves have the same capacity as white tail deer in the ability to over populate and colonize/adapt to new habitat.

Just one persons opinion.

I am just amazed that I've been able to live this long in wolf country unscathed.

Maybe I haven't. Maybe this is all just a dream from the grave. Maybe I am in reality wolf poop.

Seriously fellers, I've been here for a little while now and in that time I've seen maybe two or three, had the opportunity to shoot one, and have never felt in danger.

I know this kind of article fits the agenda, but it doesn't match the reality of actually living where an abundant wolf population occurs.

Scott AK wolf county is a whole lot different then the Lower 48 wolf county. Re read the article.

Wolf habitat in AK and habitat in the lower 48 is totally different. There if coalitions between the two.

I have watched the entire re-introduction take place in MN. Oddly enough as the wolf population has reached critical mass in the northern part of the state there is suddenly a need to study the disappearance of moose, deer zones that were allotted 2 to 5 tags now have lotteries, grouse are next to impossible to find where in the spring time the drumming was loud and constant. HMMM...and then there is the fact that friends in Two harbors have had to shed their sled dogs every night because any dog left out will be reduced to hair tufts and red snow by morning. The ignorant pricks in St. Paul don't wake up to 5 dead dogs and thousands of dollars lost so wolves are great and anything else is blown out of proportion or an isolated incedent.

quote:

I am just amazed that I've been able to live this long in wolf country unscathed.

The difference between wolves in Alaska and in the lower 48 is like night and day. How long have wolves been an integral part of the Alaskan wildlife population? How long have Alaskan residents been allowed to hunt wolves? How much livestock, cattle/horses/sheep is raised in Alaska?

Whatever your answer, that is not the case in the lower 48. Wolves were reintroduced to areas, where there had not been wolves present for + - 100 years, and residents were not allowed to protect their livestock and pets from the depredations of these animals. Introducing an alpha predator into an area that has not had that predator in it for more or less a century, is a sure fire method of achieving a disaster, and that is just exactly what has happened in the states where wolves have been reintroduced.

I did read the article. I notice that these two examples,

quote:

Originally posted by scojac:
OPINION

The Future of North American Wolves, Interview with Dr. Valerius Geist

James Swan | August 14, 2013

Former Alaska wildlife biologist Mark McNay and others have established that there have been wolf attacks on people in Canada, historical and recent. On November 8, 2005, a 22-year-old geological engineering student at the University of Waterloo, Kenton Joel Carnegie, was killed by four wolves at Points North Landing in northern Saskatchewan. This was the first direct human fatality from a healthy wolf attack in North America in recent times to receive an investigation. Geist was an expert witness in the inquisition. Val says that the four wolves that attacked Carnegie had long been observed by others, were garbage-fed, and four days earlier attacked two employees of the camp who beat back the wolves.

Candice Berner, a 32-year-old school teacher, was killed on March 8, 2010 by wolves in the village of Chignik Lake on the Alaska Peninsula. These wolves were also habituated to garbage.

He added, “I do not think wolves have a happy future in the Lower 48.”

Copyright © 2013 OutdoorHub

aren't exactly Lower 48 and in one case is quite close to me.

I wouldn't have responded if the author wouldn't have used far north examples to base his Lower 48 hysteria on. In the Chignik case, the wolves did kill and feed on the woman. Subsequently, the F&G did a big wolf shoot, the community was appeased and today,..........theres wolves right back where they were before the big shoot. Nothing has changed "Predator Control" really should be called "Predator Influencing". The large predators are here, they live with us in AK and thats just the way it is and is gonna be.

I do agree with the author when he said, " I do not think wolves have a happy future,...." That the USFWS can't think of anything better to do with their budget than introduce large predators in areas soon to be subdivisions is nuts.

The article appears to me to be designed to whip up a little anti wolf hysteria and thats fine, but don't use us as a basis.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

and residents were not allowed to protect their livestock and pets from the depredations of these animals.

Completely not true. I know of many farmers that are diligently following the 3 S's with good luck in reducing the "problem".

I think that wolves have a place in the lower 48, mainly national forests where livestock depredation would not be an issue. Like any other predator they need to be kept to a certain number. However I find that in many instances (in WI) wolves become a scapegoat to reduced deer numbers, livestock loss, etc. While the might be true in some instances, people fail to realize the total predatory population. Bear and coyotes numbers have exploded here. My uncle raises beef and live stock on his farm. A few years ago he complained that 'wolves' were killing off all the deer, eating his chickens, and killed his dog. Well, on his 160 acre farm I killed 9 coyote and saw 4 different bear that summer. After taking out the coyotes and having hunters take 2 bear he stopped having 'wolf' problems.

quote:

Originally posted by thecanadian:
I think that wolves have a place in the lower 48, mainly national forests where livestock depredation would not be an issue. Like any other predator they need to be kept to a certain number. However I find that in many instances (in WI) wolves become a scapegoat to reduced deer numbers, livestock loss, etc. While the might be true in some instances, people fail to realize the total predatory population. Bear and coyotes numbers have exploded here. My uncle raises beef and live stock on his farm. A few years ago he complained that 'wolves' were killing off all the deer, eating his chickens, and killed his dog. Well, on his 160 acre farm I killed 9 coyote and saw 4 different bear that summer. After taking out the coyotes and having hunters take 2 bear he stopped having 'wolf' problems.

Wolves in western national forest are a major livestock depredation issue as many forests have grazing leases. Theres a cost to predator introduction or re introduction beyond the bloated federal budgets. Public land and the public use of it is restricted, i.e. industry like sport hunting, ranching, logging or mining is restricted. Game species like elk are reduced. Public safety is altered or modified.

In my grandfathers time widespread poison was used for predator control and thus he nearly guaranteed good livestock production, good deer herds and no animal bites on his boys. Grandpa's land was his as he saw it and persons dissagreeing with his management didn't interest him. In todays day and age administrators from Virginia dictate policy and procedure to land owners in Nevada and Alaska with little regard or understanding of the history, original intent or the influence of their dictates.

I can appreciate the federal management of national species like ducks or whales but grizzlies or wolves in Montana should be up to Montanans only.

I believe the point of the AK wolf attack and others is and was to dispel and expose the myth promoted by the pro wolf anti hunting crowd.

That gees we don't know of or have any documented cases of wolves attacking and killing humans. So the wolf is just a friendly furry forest critter that one ever has to be concerned about.

Even with very good historical data in Europe and Asia that they do.

Why don't or didn't we have the same here because unlike Europe and Asia we didn't have huge masses of unarmed peasants for the wolves to prey on.

When a wolf caused problems here it was or is shot and killed.

Until the 30 or 40 years where they have been given total protection in the lower 48. Until the last few years.

quote:

Completely not true.

Sir, you have your experiences in the matter, and I have mine.

Basically calling a someone a liar because they have experienced things that ARE different from what you have experienced, does not do one thing to help keep discussions civil or keep them from becoming nothing more than pissing matches.

Yes, some people do practice the three S's in these matters, but some don't and some that have, have been caught and faced the legal system for doing such.

My great grandfather homesteaded in Wi.when wolves were a problem.They were smart enough to know that eliminating wolves ended their stock predation problem and it worked.Whats that about learning from our History so we do not make the same mistakes???Wolves are the main reason we will never have an Elk season here.Kill all of them.

Scojac thanks for taking the time to input the article. It is refreshing to see a scientist with the courage to write facts and not be afraid of being attacked by the opposing side. Such as: people for the wolf/ peta/ liberal press etc...etc....

The problem is trust within our government and one sided liberal agendas. They feed us a bill of goods and introduce the wolf with the objection and dismay of locals, that will be most affected in the area. Knowing full well that when the balancing quota is reached. They have no intention of fulfilling their commitment to balance the ecosystem. But at the outset have every cunning plan to deceive the public, file Lawsuits, buying time and wasting honest citizen's hard earned money. Harassment of every type, negative press, cherry picking judges. All will be shoved down our throats without regard to their original promise. They have proved it to be worthless.
We all can agree that the wolf is cunning,ferocious and demands management. Standard hunting with an extra wolf tag during deer/elk season and lots of luck will not dent the population. Any other methods will be frowned upon. So why begin a venture that is deemed for failure. I whole heartedly understand when the SSS is applied as a desperate measure by the most affected. Whenever I hunt big game in an area with available wolf tags, I make sure I have one. Knowing full well I will not put a dent in the population.
We all love to hunt. Our favorite quarry is as different as our personalities. Let's stay civil, respect our varied opinions and stay united.

Damn every rotten wolf !!!! I buy wolf tags and hope that I get to use 'em. They have really done a number on Idaho Elk !

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Completely not true.

Sir, you have your experiences in the matter, and I have mine.

Basically calling a someone a liar because they have experienced things that ARE different from what you have experienced, does not do one thing to help keep discussions civil or keep them from becoming nothing more than pissing matches.

Yes, some people do practice the three S's in these matters, but some don't and some that have, have been caught and faced the legal system for doing such.

lighten up...I was being sarcastic.

Being sarcastic or not being sarcastic is not the issue. The issue at hand is the future of wolves in North America, especially the lower 48 states. From the conversations I have had and the comments I have seen made on the various websites, the folks in the Greater Yellowstone area of Wyoming/Montana/Idaho, do not want wolves in the area, but because of Federal Regulations, LEGALLY, there is little they can do.

Here in NM, the price tag is approaching $1 million per wolf. This is money the USF&WS is spending to introduce wolves where they aren't wanted instead of spending it on something else - like maintaining their refuge system. Wolves had their place 200 years ago. Today they are a nuisance at best and a very real threat at worst. In Grant and Catron counties, NM, the parents of school age children are building wolf proof enclosures for their kids to wait on the school bus after several incidents of the kids being stalked while awaiting the school bus.

This subject will always be a greatly debated topic. I have issue with the fact that the few NATIVE wolves that were still around were not considered much. Instead these idiots decided to introduce wolves that are larger into areas that really are the last large landscape holding truly wild animals in a wilderness area.

Humans have access but in most of the west the "wild animals" can be found in hay fields, golf courses, yards, etc. They are used to traffic on forest roads, and adjust their behaviors as soon as traffic increases because they want to avoid us. We affect them greatly.
Now, we've introduced a very efficient predator into the this restricted area and somehow "experts" believe we will have a balance? What you will see is depleted populations of game to the point the wolves are struggling. They will seek easier food and it will be related to humans. The starvation of wolves should be expected as well as depredation on stock, pets, and probably even people. They will spread much farther than people expected because they will be searching for food.

Balance will be restored when enough wolves have starved to death to keep food available. The game herds will be small, scattered, and "sustainable" only for the amount of wolves still around.

Our hunting seasons are already shorter or have been eliminated in some cases. How far past the "sustainable" levels are we already?

quote:

Originally posted by Pancho:
...several incidents of the kids being stalked while awaiting the school bus.

That is number 6 in the 7 step habituation process described above. People need to pay attention to Dr. Geist. He is one of the foremost experts on wildlife behavior. I can remember reading his research in school and have seen his papers published in the Wildlife Society publications throughout my career. He has always been one of the names that is most recognizable in the wildlife profession.

quote:

Originally posted by don444:
Damn every rotten wolf !!!! I buy wolf tags and hope that I get to use 'em. They have really done a number on Idaho Elk !

The damage is done and their aint no going back. Thank your local liberal bunnyhugger..

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

The damage is done and their aint no going back. Thank your local liberal bunnyhugger..

I disagree with the idea that there ain't no going back. If people were able to eradicate most all of the wolves in the lower 48 in 1800 we certainly have the ability to do the same again. The problem is it is going to take a huge swing in public opinion to bring back wolf bounty's, unlimited trapping and wolf poison on a large scale in the lower 48.

I am afraid it's going to take several children being killed and eaten to get major shift like that. The sad thing is that its probably going to happen.

We just had a wolf attack and bite a kid here in MN over the weekend. It's only a matter of time.

16-year-old boy bitten by wolf at campground on Lake Winnibigoshish http://www.startribune.com/local/221213171.html

quote:

The damage is done and their aint no going back. Thank your local liberal bunnyhugger..

Second/Third and Fourth that thought. We can't get feral horses or donkeys removed from Federal Land and they do not belong there either. Both destroy habitat that our native game animals such as Mule Deer depend on. There were no horses/donkeys in North America until the Spanish brought them over here in the early 1500's.

For wolves to remain a viable member of the eco-system, they will have to regarded in the same light as coyotes, but because of their natural behavior and breeding physiology, they will have to be intensively managed and both numbers of packs and numbers of individuals in those packs is going to have to be re-assessed.

Admittedly, it is not completely the fault of the wolves. For decades there was no highly efficient predator of the larger herbivores in the environment. Grizzly numbers were low or non-existent, mountain lions only take so much large prey annually, black bear/coyotes/bobcats do not focus that heavily on the larger hoofed game animals.

Due to the demands of hunters, many game species were allowed/encouraged to proliferate into population numbers that were going to eventually threaten the entire habitat.

Wolves were brought in but due to a lack of understanding concerning their level of efficiency as a top tier predator and the sheer amount of prey animals required to keep a pack healthy, in stead of low balling the proposed number of animals/packs to be introduced to a given area, they high balled it with completely ridiculous numbers of animals/packs.

The problem now, is doing the research necessary to determine the actual carrying capacity of animals/packs in any given region.

All just my opinion nothing more.

Another one of those nice friendly forest critters that well harm on humans.

posted 27 August 2013 06:37

http://www.duluthnewstribune.c...6190/group/homepage/

A 16-year-old boy was the victim of an apparent wolf attack at a campground on Lake Winnibigoshish near Deer River, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources announced Monday afternoon. The boy sustained non-life-threatening injuries, according to a DNR news release.


The boy is from Solway, Minn., said Cheri Zeppelin, DNR Northeast Region information officer in Grand Rapids. The incident occurred early Saturday morning, she said.


The boy, whose name has not been released, was bitten on the head, Zeppelin said.


“He’s got puncture wounds on his head and an 11-centimeter (4.3-inch) wound that had to be closed,” Zeppelin said. “He’s OK.”


The incident occurred at the U. S. Forest Service West Winnie Campground, near where the Mississippi River enters Lake Winnibigoshish, she said.

The wolf ran into the woods after the boy kicked it, according to a DNR news release.


After receiving local first-aid, the boy was transported to a hospital in Bemidji. The wound required multiple staples to close, but was not life-threatening.


Statements from other campers indicated there were other incidents at the U.S. Forest Service campground where an animal bit through tents, one resulting in the puncturing of an air mattress, according to the DNR.


Another camper indicated that he witnessed a wolf near his campsite with coloration and markings matching the description of the animal involved in the attack on the boy, the DNR news release stated.


The wolf, an average-size male at about 75 pounds, was trapped and killed and is being taken to the University of Minnesota veterinary diagnostic lab to be tested for rabies. Also, the lab will collect samples for DNA analyses and complete a thorough medical examination to determine the health of the animal.


Traps will be left in place for one more night to be sure another wolf is not present in the area. The Forest Service has closed the campground until further notice.


“This is an extremely rare incident and not normal wolf behavior,” said Tom Provost, regional manager of the DNR’s Enforcement Division. “Because wolf bites or attacks on humans are so rare, they are poorly understood. These rare incidents have usually involved food-habituated wolves and have led to minor injuries, but no fatalities.”


Before this incident, a serious injury or fatal attack on a human had never been documented in Minnesota, according to the DNR. There have been two wolf attack fatalities in North America in the last decade, according to the agency. One was in northern Canada and another was in Alaska.

Got to kill 60% of them PER season
just to hold the numbers even!
Montana and Idaho are pounding on theirs
Wyoming has to tread lightly with pending lawsuits.Reducing the kill by 50% this yr.
52 last yr, 26 this yr.
3 weeks ago I saw the same wolf in the same meadow 2 nights in a row. Season isn't open.
Heard from a solid source, of seeing 12 in
the same area, sleeping together in a meadow.
They are here and the damage is done.
The "unpublished" Spring elk count #s from
"inside" Yellowstone was 300 animals!
They counted another 3600 outside the Park.
The "inside of the Park" count used to be in the 1000's. Course the wolf count used to be in the 150-170 range, now down around 60.
Here in Wyoming,
If the wolf hippies will keep splashing the great photo's of Jellystone wolves all over their sites.
We know what our choices are

quote:

Originally posted by ravenr:
Got to kill 60% of them PER season
just to hold the numbers even!
Montana and Idaho are pounding on theirs
Wyoming has to tread lightly with pending lawsuits.Reducing the kill by 50% this yr.
52 last yr, 26 this yr.
3 weeks ago I saw the same wolf in the same meadow 2 nights in a row. Season isn't open.
Heard from a solid source, of seeing 12 in
the same area, sleeping together in a meadow.
They are here and the damage is done.
The "unpublished" Spring elk count #s from
"inside" Yellowstone was 300 animals!
They counted another 3600 outside the Park.
The "inside of the Park" count used to be in the 1000's. Course the wolf count used to be in the 150-170 range, now down around 60.
Here in Wyoming,
If the wolf hippies will keep splashing the great photo's of Jellystone wolves all over their sites.
We know what our choices are

yea, and it was not to many years ago that over a 100 moose tags were allotted in the Duboise to Yellowstone region. now, I think they issue 3. The wolves are killing everything in the region. Hell, we even have them in Nevada now, although we refer to them as "large coyotes" which are totally legal to shoot on site

Wolves are to stay if we like it or not. Shoot them tag or no tag.
But at the same time we like wild places and wild places mean large predators like it or not.
OK few people got killed by wolves over the years, hell of a lot more people get killed by griz and especially by black bears and also rut crazy whitetails.
Sky is not falling gentlemen. In my humble opinion, we are gonna be OK and so will deer and elk.
After all, they have lived together for millions of years and are still years.
Nothing is constant and nothing lasts forever so let's shoot some deer, elk and wolves and grab a beer afterwards.
PS: V. Geist is just like climate scientists, he will cry wolf until he drops dead. It's his job.

My personal thought has been that we need to fight fire with fire, and introduce an animal that can "naturally" control wolf numbers.

I give you the Siberian Tiger...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_tiger

quote:

Originally posted by Wikipedia:
Tigers depress wolves' numbers, either to the point of localized extinction or to such low numbers as to make them a functionally insignificant component of the ecosystem. Wolves appear capable of escaping competitive exclusion from tigers only when human pressure decreases tiger numbers.

In areas where wolves and tigers share ranges, the two species typically display a great deal of dietary overlap, resulting in intense competition. Wolf and tiger interactions are well documented in Sikhote-Alin, where until the beginning of the 20th century, very few wolves were sighted. Wolf numbers may have increased in the region after tigers were largely eliminated during the Russian colonization in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

This is corroborated by native inhabitants of the region claiming that they had no memory of wolves inhabiting Sikhote-Alin until the 1930s, when tiger numbers decreased. Today, wolves are considered scarce in tiger habitat, being found in scattered pockets, and usually seen travelling as loners or in small groups. First hand accounts on interactions between the two species indicate that tigers occasionally chase wolves from their kills, while wolves will scavenge from tiger kills. Tigers are not known to prey on wolves, though there are four records of tigers killing wolves without consuming them.

This competitive exclusion of wolves by tigers has been used by Russian conservationists to convince hunters in the Far East to tolerate the big cats, as they limit ungulate populations less than wolves, and are effective in controlling wolf numbers.

This has the added bonus of Tiger trophy's being much more desirable than wolf trophies, which can actually put money in the local fish and game coffers when their populations need to be managed...

But, such things happen only in dreams.

quote:

Admittedly, it is not completely the fault of the wolves. For decades there was no highly efficient predator of the larger herbivores in the environment

Yes there was and still is man he is the most efficient predator. That's why we need all the laws protecting the animals.

Wolves are a great plague in the Western. Our Great Grandparents did us a favor getting rid of them. Its amazing that back in the 20's here in Utah, where very few of the Pioneers/Homesteaders had any money, they offered a $50 bounty on them. Wow, I wonder why

I would just as soon see a bounty put on them- poison, baiting, shooting, whatever it takes to exterminate them for the lower 48.

quote:

Yes there was and still is man he is the most efficient predator. That's why we need all the laws protecting the animals.

The part you are overlooking, if you will think about it, Humans have to work within a STRUCTURED season which includes bag limits, WOLVES Do Not!!!!!!!!!!!

Think about it, wolves are hunters 365/24/7, HUMANS are not.

If you believe differently, please provide evidence of a wolf being ticketed for killing a deer or elk during a CLOSED season!

Wolves have No Closed Season!

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Yes there was and still is man he is the most efficient predator. That's why we need all the laws protecting the animals.

The part you are overlooking, if you will think about it, Humans have to work within a STRUCTURED season which includes bag limits, WOLVES Do Not!!!!!!!!!!!

Think about it, wolves are hunters 365/24/7, HUMANS are not.

If you believe differently, please provide evidence of a wolf being ticketed for killing a deer or elk during a CLOSED season!

Wolves have No Closed Season!

Very good reply !

And still, we are gonna be OK.
Ranchers will live thru it, hunters will live thru it, elk and deer will live thru it.
Here in western Montana, areas that were hit hardest were area that had either sex elk on winter range. OOps.
We stopped it and voila, numbers went up, despite having wolves here all this time.
Greed is in our ranks as well, we all wanna fill the freezer no matter what and don't want any competition including other hunters. How many times we all heard, " those guys hunt in my area and now there is less game ,I was here first "
Hunters - conservationists, those are very few. Rest of us are just shooters of anything that moves in the name of " meat for the Winter"
Quit crying wolf and go hunt them. Most of hunters don't seriously hunt wolves. Too hard, too cold ... too many excuses. This I hear from many ranchers in our area. Everyone wants to hunt elk and deer, but once season is over nobody comes to hunt wolves.
You get the message.

Humans would and could hunt 24/7 if allowed to do so. Before modern game laws they did.

But I guess I still don't under stand your point. I once had a anti tell me wolves hunting 24/7 was better for the game animals ?

My whole point is, we have 8 months wolf season ( gun and trap ), but only very few of us hunt them after elk/deer season is over.
I seriously doubt , all of you complainers hunt wolves seriously all winter and into the Spring.
And sky is not falling, period.
If you'd spend any time in woods, you'd find out.
PS: This one is for V. Geist. Get your gun and do something about it.
Canada is Mecca for great deer and elk. It's all over the hunting channels.
Oh, they don't have any wolves, right?

I hunt yote year around in wis we had a very short season.

I would love to chase wolves in jan feb when the snow gets deeper. wis season was closed long before that as the kill goals were met.

quote:

But I guess I still don't under stand your point.

I really do not think I can make you understand my point. When were wolves introduced into the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem? How long had wolves been out of that system? For how many decades had the game departments in the states that make up the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, at the insistence of sport hunters, allow the numbers of sought after game animals increase to or above actual carrying capacity of the range?

How long had the ranchers, taking advantage of the low cost grazing on BLM and NFS, stocked/over stocked their grazing leases due to the lack of an aggressive predator such as wolves. Wolves had basically, especially in the west, been totally removed from the picture for several decades.

The results have been that the native prey species had evolved without a predator as efficient or successful as wolves. They had gotten use to dogs/coyotes, neither of which pose the same threat as wolves. The actual impact of predation by wolves, cannot be measured in the number of animals actually killed, but also has to include the migration of animals from areas of high wolf predation to areas of lower predation, and when livestock is added to the mix, simply because they cannot move out of an area like native game animals can, the problem is magnified. JMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
[QUOTE]But I guess I still don't under stand your point.

I really do not think I can make you understand my point. When were wolves introduced into the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem? How long had wolves been out of that system? For how many decades had the game departments in the states that make up the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, at the insistence of sport hunters, allow the numbers of sought after game animals increase to or above actual carrying capacity of the range?

How long had the ranchers, taking advantage of the low cost grazing on BLM and NFS, stocked/over stocked their grazing leases due to the lack of an aggressive predator such as wolves. Wolves had basically, especially in the west, been totally removed from the picture for several decades.

The results have been that the native prey species had evolved without a predator as efficient or successful as wolves. They had gotten use to dogs/coyotes, neither of which pose the same threat as wolves. The actual impact of predation by wolves, cannot be measured in the number of animals actually killed, but also has to include the migration of animals from areas of high wolf predation to areas of lower predation, and when livestock is added to the mix, simply because they cannot move out of an area like native game animals can, the problem is magnified. JMO.[/QUOTE/]


Totally wrong.
Wolves in the Yellowstone Eco System were Timber Wolves. I grew up hunting around Yellowstone and the Rockies and guided Elk and Sheep hunters in the area just below Yellowstone in the early 80's (Dubois-Togetti area) and we saw and heard wolves all the time. This was before the introduction of wolves in the area. I have also seen and heard them outside of this particular area, opposite the highway in the Union Pass area and as far away as the mountains above Pinedale Wyo. These are actually documented by the Fish and Game if you do a lot of digging. There was one particular wolf in the early 80s that had a radio collar that ranged thru the Rockies all the way from the Canadian border into Colorado. I'll give you a $1,000,00 if he was the lone wolf alive in the Rockies at that time.
The original wolves were not pack animals. They were "pair" animals, a male and a female. They were smaller and darker colored. Their prey consisted of smaller animals such as mice, rabbits, deer fawn, old weak deer and elk, carrion etc. They would have a litter of one to three pups, of which the mortality rate was around 50% and as the pups grew and were able to sustain themselves, the parents would abandon them to fend for themselves.
The wolves that were introduced into the Yellowstone Eco System were not Timber Wolves. They were Canadian/Yukon Wolves. These wolves-different genetics, tend to be pack animals. And they tend to have larger litters, 4 to 6 pups at a time. And a higher life expectancy in a much less cruel environment than where they originally habituated themselves to be. And they are larger, much larger. They had evolved to be pack animals and larger in general size due to the habitat they came from that requires far ranging characteristics chasing caribou herds and other migratory animals and the prey that they eat i.e. large animals such as Caribou and Moose. The Yukon/Tundra has one of the lowest animal density per square mile of any habitable land on earth, so wolves in this eco system had to be big and strong and capable of traveling long distances, very different than the Timber Wolf's life style. The Timber Wolf lived in an area with a large variety of prey and did not have to travel much as a general rule.
What most do not realize is that a predators biggest enemy is other predators. Coyotes kill Fox's. Wolves kill coyotes. Big wolves kill smaller wolves. So the original Timber Wolf population that ranged thru out the Rockies in the USA is no longer around. They are now extinct.......period.....The reason why they are extinct is because man introduced a feral species into the mix - big aggressive Yukon wolves. And lets not forget another extinct species - Plains Bison. What you see today in Bison is a genetically altered species mostly composed of Woodland Bison. Roosevelt saved a very small number of Plains Bison, holed up in Yellowstone, and supplemented that small herd with Bison from the wooded areas of Canada, not realizing that they were different genetics. . . So what little Plains Bison blood line that was left is seriously diluted to the point of not even being there. And lets talk about another species, the Buffalo Wolf, also now extinct. No migratory buffalo, no specialized predator like the buffalo wolf.(plains animal - not mountainous Yellowstone Eco System Animals)
But to answer a couple of your specific questions:
1. Wolves have never left the Yellowstone Eco System or the Rockies for that matter. Timber Wolves have not been out of the picture. Buffalo Wolves (Plains Animals) have been extinct for a century.
2. Ranchers in Wyoming can graze on allotted BLM Grazing Lands, which they pay for per pair or per animal that they intend to graze on that land. I would not say that it is especially cheap grazing. The meat produced by the cattle and sheep feed the country and the world to some extent. As far as overgrazing, most ranchers out west are smarter than that, I know my family was, and I don't believe they take advantage of anything they have not earned by hard ass work. And the tree hugging BLM pricks watch very closely and hand out fines very generously. What really hurts the environment thru over grazing is feral animals, take the horse for example. Very destructive with absolutely no controls and very little predatation.
3. The native prey species that you mention are deer and elk and moose. I agree that they had returned to numbers never witnessed by modern man before, prior to the introduction of feral Yukon Wolves. Sport hunters had little if anything to do with this. You can credit this larger number of animals due to the demise of Native Americans nomadic way of life and culture changes. Hell, grocery stores started to sell meat, what a concept. They also were regulated in numbers thru hunting permits. Don't forget, during the settling of the west, mining booms etc. most ungulates were almost wiped out. Some were (see plains Bison). Good laws and solid game management and predator control allowed their numbers to increase to the high levels we saw in the 70s. In Wyoming growing up, you simply went and bought a deer or elk license. Moose and sheep as far back as I can remember were always a draw animal. The predators for these animals are man, eagles, coyotes, black bears and grizzly bears, and at one time the Timber Wolf. All of which were around in suitable numbers prior to the introduction of Yukon Wolves. I don't ever remember elk as easy to hunt. Had the Yukon Wolf not been introduced the moose population would have had time to stabilize. Now its a for gone conclusion, moose will never regain their footing in the area

Life in the Yellowstone Eco System/Rocky Mountains was totally in balance - lots of prey for the predator species and man. And the prey species were wary because of predators around. Now it is completely out of balance. The Yukon Wolves have killed everything. What the wolves have not killed the over population of protected grizzly bears have. That is why these two species are leaving the greater Yellowstone ecosystem and the Rocky Mountains, spreading into areas where they had never been before and are now in conflict with human interests, with recorded sightings of wolves as far as Los Angelos and Kansas. Conflicts with Grizzly bears is now approaching higher numbers in the lower 48 than in Alaska. I personally have seen wolves in Nevada. Soon, they will be spreading thru Texas, cant wait to hear the bitching and moaning that happens then. Wolves are a big problem now - they will become an epidemic in less than 10 years. This new environment is far to easy for them to live in compared to the environment they came from, and therefore their survival rate is very high
I suggest researching actual information, not information installed to direct people to think a certain way. Introduced Wolves and Wild Horses are not as glorious as made out to be by the general population JMO