quote:

Elkslayer, I understand where you are coming from, but I think you will find that you and the wolves and hunting will all coexist. The odds are pretty high that you can have wolves and still have hunting. Note that there is mighty fine hunting - strangely though it seems - happens to be where the are wolves. Alaska, Alberta, Ontario, Minnesota, and even Northern and SW Wisconsin. All really fine hunting.

Wrong again! As always! Just a small town professor, or janitor at a junior college.

The wolves in Wy. Id, and Mt. were the first ever introduced packs. With no control and lies by the feds. X amount of packs and they will be delisted for the states to control. Lies again. The numbers have exceded all ecpectations, due to the herds of elk availible to eat. Elk have been decimated in some areas of Wy. You will refute that, but you don't live here, nor does IV. You only know what your biololigist buddy tells you., And he is once again, one sided and not with the majority of the Wy. G&F.

Fact is, elk numbers are being reduced dramatically in some areas, ecohunters like you refute the truth. There is no room for a preditor of this magnitude in this day and age. Land is being gobbled up (here) Wyoming, not corn field USA, at an alarming rate. With that, and over predation, the elk don't stand a chance. There will be a balance, but in our life time. The balance will be fewer elk, fewer opportunities, and not the same as it was 15 years ago.


And if our G&F had not implemented a point system for you flatlanders you still might not draw! Unforetunetly you will probably draw and with a little luck, you won't see any elk! Thanks for the $543.00 and here's hoping you don't draw!

Found this interesting.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServe...36&col=1112101662670

Kudu56:

Thanks for answering a question that had nagged at me throughour reading all these various threads (including this one) about wolves. I had wondered why wolves and elk had existed for thousands of years together without the wolves wiping out the elk - and yet I was reading the same statement over and over again from people who lived or hunted in wolf/elk country about how in current times the wolves were decimating the elk. I knew the locals had to be right -but why were they right? What had changed in the equation? The answer, of course, was right in front of me, but I didn't see the forest for the trees. The elk don't have the wide open spaces they had once and the wolves get to hunt elk who are in smaller and smaller spaces. (relatively speaking, of course. I've been in every Western state and like all Easterners was awed by the scope and majesty of the country - but that was nearly 50 years ago and I guess even the West has changed) I guess the idea of wolves roaming the West is a nice romantic notion of us "tenderfeet" ideas of the West - but then so are long horn cattle and I don't think the ranchers would appreciate any suggestion by me that they bring them back!

No way! I thought they ate grass.

Gerry;Actually longhorns have made a big come back they are popular on guest ranches for cattle drives and the yearlings are used for competition roping.w/regards

gophershooter

Glad to hear it! I realize that the Hereford and black Angus probably taste better but somehow to this old watcher of Western movies, the sight of the longhorns says something. Regards.

Bring on the $26.50 wolf tag. I really don't want to fill a tag. I just want to gut shoot a dozen or so of them.

Yep that Minnesota and wisconsin hunting is really great. That explains why all those phuckers come out here every fall to road hunt.

Longhorns are a base for many cattle herds here in the Big Horn Basin, You see them on many ranches, cross bred with standard breeds. SO the long horn is not gone by any imagination.

As for the wolf, they were dumped in a virgin territory,full of thousands of elk, and in reality they were naturally returning. Doncumented and proved, but denied by the feds because a if a true naturally occuring pack was here, then it would have put a halt to thier deviated, sexually arrouseing,bring back the past,warm and fuzzy, reintroducion.

They also managed to reintroduce a species of wolf that never ever exsisted in wyoming naturally or traditionally.

Kudu56 - sledder

It is amazing to me back here in the East how little information about wolves is reported in our media around these parts. It is not just because wolves are not a part of our local countryside any more - The media faithfully report every bunny hugger "spokesman" who is complaining that those savage people out West are actually killing those vegetarian wolves. (I assume the wolves are vegetarians -because otherwise the media never tells me just what they live on) (BTW, I heard a few years ago about another wolf "experiment". As I recall it was to "reintroduce" a species called a "red wolf" into one of the Carolinas. I haven't heard anything more about it and wonder if Carolina folks have any "on the ground" info about it?)

Thats the problem with the media, you only hear stuff about wolves when it goes against them, like airborne shooting of wolves in Alaska. You don't ever hear of how they are killing ranchers sheep and cattle or how they decimate herds of elk, deer, or caribou. I respect the wolf in many ways and it would be a sad thing if they were iradicated but they need to be controlled much better than they are.

Gerry,

There's currently a reintroduction of the MEXICAN gray wolf into its historic range in eastern AZ and western NM. It began in 1998 is going on as we speak. You can read about it here:

Mexican Wolf Introduction

The real issue is that in many areas where the wolves were introduced (for example the Frank Church and Chamberlain Basin in Idaho) they were never present historically. They were placed there because it was seen to be "good wolf habitat" and there were large populations of ungulates. Throughout their "introduced"/"reintroduced" range, the wolves' prey species were present in fairly large numbers, not becuase they occured there naturally, but because hunters and sportsmen had spent over 100 years and countless millions of dollars to help those populations recover and expand to the point where they presented tremendous opportunities for hunting and were very important to the economies of the Western Mountain region. Then groups of individuals and governmental agencies (US Forest Service and USFWS, who had been infiltrated over time with "green folk")whose agenda is not really the introduction or reintroduction of a spieces to an area, but the elimination of a spieces (humans) from large segments of the environment, then decided it would be a great "natural" idea to introduce a "foreign" spieces (Candadian Grey Wolves) to large segements of the West. The results have been predictable. Large kill-offs of elk and deer, older, weaker and more vulnerable populations of remaining ungulates and with it, the coming further economic hit to many areas already hard hit economically by the loss of historical industries such as logging. It's ironic that the folks championing these reintroduction ideas are largely from either the left or right coasts or areas where these issues don't exist. In those areas there is never a push to "reintroduce" a formerly existing predators. I'm from No. California and went to went to college and law school at of all places, "Berzerkly". Seems that our mascot and the one on the State flag is a large golden grizzly bear, yet I don't see the "greens" lobbying for a reintroduction of grizzlies in the Sierras or the Cascades or the coast range where "historically" they were quite plentiful. Why not? The answer is obvious, it would interfere with Carl Pope',the Sierra Club's and other greenies nature hikes. Better to put them and the wolves somewhere where the "backwards", "inbred" country folk live. Tinkle, tinkle, pass the Chardonnay.

There were never wolves in the Church? And you say this with what authority? I'm curious about where that comes from. Got some citations of credibility?

Brent

M70Nut:

You have said it just right about wolves from this Easterner's perspective. I don't want them to be eradicated (any more than I want any other mammal to be eradicated) I want them to be out there -without upsetting the balance of nature. I read once a remark by someone: "I probably never will ever see a tiger -but I want to know that they are out there somewheres". I want to feel that way about wolves. Glad to know that someone living in wolf country feels that way.

I believe there are on line reports and other information both in the Gov docs prior to the introduction and statements from the Nez P tribe that assisted in the process that both discussed the historical absence of wolves in the area.

Gerrys375, What's the "balance of nature" in today's world? Just what is and what is not "out of balance", how about us humanoids? More people are alive on the planet today than ever lived prior to now. Are we "in balance" and as the population continues to expand, how does that play into the "balance". You want to know that there "are wolves out there". Great. Wolves are not in any way endangered, there are plenty of them "out there" in Canada and Alaska. Would you feel the same way if wolves were eating your dog off your porch or killing your new born calves? Ask yourself how much money the wolf groups have put into conserving wildlife, deer, sheep, elk and their habitat compared to that of sportsmen? The answer is precious little, but boy it sure feels good to sit in that NY penthouse and know they are out there...eating someone else's pets or livestock. Wow, this not the political forum, but boy is that a liberal, b.s. approach. "Let me tell you folks out there in the boonies, what is best for you." The fact is wolves are in the West now to stay, but they need to be controlled and controlled fast.

EB:

I don't know who you are (I notice you don't even indicate what part of the States {or Canada} you are from -but I'll tell you right off ,mister - I was looking at wolves probably before you were born. If you had ever read my posts on this and other threads about wolves you would know that I need no instruction about wolves from the likes of you. "Balance of nature"? If that term is so difficult for you to assimilate as I use it, I can only say that you should enroll in your local community college and learn some more. Funny, as an Easterner, I never got such an insulting post from any other Westerner on the subject of wolves. Hmm. Just makes me wonder about who you are.

EB;Speaks the truth I am a rancher and live about 30 miles from the paradise valley which runs up the yellowstone from Livingston to Gardiner MT.Those ranchers and sheep keepers have just been decimated by wolves.The sheep folks getting the worse of it,the wolves kill their guard dogs and then the sheep.They gut bred ewes and go on to the next not eating anything sometimes just killing and maiming.There is a friends of the wolf group that pays for their losses if they can prove it.But thats not the end of it now these ewes are so screwed up they wony cycle and breed and no body gets paid for that.w/regards

quote:

Ask yourself how much money the wolf groups have put into conserving wildlife, deer, sheep, elk and their habitat compared to that of sportsmen? The answer is precious little, but boy it sure feels good to sit in that NY penthouse and know they are out there...eating someone else's pets or livestock. Wow, this not the political forum, but boy is that a liberal, b.s. approach. "Let me tell you folks out there in the boonies, what is best for you." The fact is wolves are in the West now to stay, but they need to be controlled and controlled fast.

I agree, very good common sense points. One true fact, the original wolves reintroduced, cost US tax payers $1 million each, thats per wolf. While poverty goes on in the US and children go to bed hungry, but by God we have canadian grey wolves in Wy. Mt, and Id. That do absolutely no good to human kind in an ever increasing and changing enviroment that will never halt devlopement in the west.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm pretty sure there is a slight chance of that happening in a thread about wolves )...

But wasn't the native wolf of the northern Rockies, excluding Canada, a smaller species?

And aren't the Canadian grey wolves which were introduced non-native to this area?

Several times I have read posts which state something like this; "Wolves were around for eons and the elk, moose, deer, big horn sheep, etc. survived. So why the hysteria now?"

My contention is...

The wolves which were native to this area were smaller, thus the prey, which hasn't changed size, is more susceptible to the LARGER wolf species than they were to the smaller native species.

You are exactly right They were big prarrie wolfs more like a big coyote.Nothing like the Canadian wolf we have to daeal with now.w/regards

Yup! Very true, and there was documented proof that a naturally occuring group of wolves had already inhabited NW Wyoming. But the feds denied it as it would have halted the warm and fuzzy transplant.

And there was never not one iota or thread of proof that wolves existed in jellystone as they do today. Colter of the Lewis and Clark expidition never documented one wolf in Yellowstone, but had written diaries of many other species.

Would be very interested to see the source of your information that the wolf species native to the area in question was smaller.

I have heard both sides argue over this and as of yet I have not seen one scientifically based source that can either confirm (or refute) the theory.

IV

quote:

"We are absolutely certain removing northern Rocky Mountain wolves from the endangered species list at this time will only jeopardize their continued recovery," Clark said.

I'd like to see that study.

Sooooooooo what happens to the calves that the wolves don't kill?

Go to the local museums here, there are quite a few pictures of dead wolves,(best kind), shot by local ranchers, trappers, hunters, goverment trappers. Maybe one of hundreds in photos would go 100#. Not scientific, but some proof.

One of the last documented wolves shot in the state was shot in Hot Springs county by a rancher, last name Brown, it went over a 100#.

There is no scietific evidence proving they were larger either, or the same as the canadian wolf. But there DNA is different, that is a fact and very scientific. The DNA is different from the great lakes versus the Wy.Mt. Id, wolves and that was published in the papers. THe wolf shot before the reintroduction, south of the park, shot by Jerry Kyser was a mature, full grown wolf and it was 60 to 70#. THe USF&W did the DNA and proved it was a wolf. But they never stated where it might have came from. It was kept pretty hush-hush, because the state was fighting the reintrodcution then, and if it could have been proven that wolf was part of a population of naturally recurring pack, then the reintroduction would have been halted.

gerrys375, Sorry I offended you, but this is a pretty sore topic for me. Also, I never really noticed that I didn't have a "location" on my posts. I hope I've corrected that. I also certainly hope you were not discussing wolves before I was born, because you would be very, very old now. . I grew up in a small town near the California/Oregon border and have seen the economic wreckage to the lumber industry caused by an owl, that hey, it turns out does just fine in second and third growth forests. We also have an "inholding" in the Frank Church and I spend over 60 days a year in there. When the first wolves were reintroduced, they decided to den just off our property. We've seen first hand the devastation the wolves have wrought on the elk herds there. Hey, I think that a wolf howling in the wilderness is a great sound, a wild sound and now that they are there, I don't think they are going to be exterminated. What I'm saying is that the Canadian grey is one hell of a big predator and they need to be controlled inside the wilderness for the benefit of the game herds and largely eliminated outside the wilderness where they don't belong for the benefit of the farmers and ranchers. The reason I'm very sensitive about all this, is that I've already had to live through the "protection" of the Cougar here in California. We now have more cats then ever existed in this state, period. The are stressed and they are becoming more aggressive. Friends in many areas of rural No. Cal won't let there kids play outside any more since they've been stalked by cats. Ask the old guy who was taking a walk with his wife last week and got his head practically bitten off what he thinks about those cuddly little Mt. Lions that shouldn't be hunted and need to be protected at all costs. Get this..my wife won't walk in the parks in the Oaklnad hills and East Bay Regional Parks without our dog because we've seen pug marks of cats just across from our home. My point is simple: It may make some people very happy to be able to say, "gee wouldn't it be great to know that there are wolves and cougars up every draw and on every hill", but I happen to believe it's the folks who have to live with results of that on a day to day basis that ought to have a big say in whether it happens and not voters in a big city (I guess that may include me) or folks from 2500 miles away.

A Californian I agree with!

Be very wary of drawing conclusions based on differences in DNA-- it has been show very clearly that even local populations of deer have different allelic frequencies, levels of heterozygosity etc.

Merely having differnet DNA does not mean they are larger or smaller.....

I would suspect that if the wolves pre-reintroduction were in fact smaller; than 1 of 2 scenarios should play out, either the selection pressure to cause the earlier wolves to become smaller will eventually have the same effect on this population (casuing them to evolve towards a smaller body size) OR if the conditions of today are such that larger bodied wolves would be selected for, than the original population would have naturally headed towards the current body size.

Based upon the current population level, wolves are either the appropriate size for the environment they live in-- OR they may eat themselves "out of house and home"-- prey populations will crash and then wolf populations will crash, if selection works towards smaller wolves-- the few that survive the coming crash should have selection pressure to be smaller. A consequence would of course be a crash in prey (deer, elk etc.) that would then have to recover.

Interesting....

IV

Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass whether these wolves are genetic clones of preextinction wolves or not. The system is in need of a large, social canid predator capable of taking on the largest game. It has one now. That's a good thing.

IV is absolutely right about the body size issue. It's one of the most genetically variable traits there is in any organism and selection for large or small size can, and does, happen very quickly. If they need to grow or shrink Ma Nature will take care of that.

In the meantime, I find it depressing amusing that the anti crowd continues to argue as if wolves are an option. They are there to stay. The sooner you accept that idea the sooner you will see movement towards trophy hunting them and managing their numbers via hunting. Idaho and Wisconsin/Minnesota are going to get there before Wyoming for just that reason.

But so long as you bitch and moan and preach the 3S bible, the longer it will be before you regain control of wolf populations. You are playing nicely into the PETA crowd's net - like hunters so often do.

Ah well.

Brent

Another interesting note about selection for body size is that it also works this way on the prey species.

It is often heard that elk and deer used to be much bigger "in the good ole days" and much of this may have to do with selection pressure towards larger body size because of the predation pressure of the past.

With humans having the strongest effect of predation on many species (deer, elk etc.) selection towards smaller body size may have been occuring (i.e. a smaller body is better unless the individual has to defend against an up close attacker like a mt. lion or wolf) whereas defending against rifle shots or arrows the individual may be better suited towards being smaller.

It will be interesting to see if body size of deer/elk begin to increase as a response to the change in predation type.

IV

It would be pretty interesting. I wonder if anyone is looking. Have to ask around.

What I don't know, and I have looked a little, is if hunters really cause selection for smaller sizes. I have seen only one paper on selection pressure of hunting, and it could find no effect. But it is an old paper with a very narrow scope. Do you know of anything recent on hunter-induced selection for any body size/morphology characters? that would be pretty interesting to me.

Brent

The USF&W service has used the DNA in all the questionable cases involving the wolf. Yes they are here to stay, and yes they are having an adverse effect on elk populations. I could also give a red rats ass, as I have killed all the elk I really want to kill. I like one for the freezer every year, and the chance is getting almost nill! Again, according to the WG&F, not some liberal from iowa, elk in high wolf density areas have an average weight much lower than elk in other nonwolf areas of Wy. Wolf pressure and constant harassment by wolves is making the elk smaller and the wolves bigger.

It is cyclical, I have seen days when, if, if, you drew a limited quota bull tag, you had better shoot the first bull you see, because it might be the only bull you see all season. To a few years back when you could turn down a small bull and see many bulls to pick from. Now it is going back to your just being lucky to see a bull, let alone an elk. Why? Any resonable answers from the flatlander? Yeah, wolves!


To many people who really know and care are reporting fewer elk in areas with high concentrations of wolves. Again, wolves are nothing more than blood thirsty dogs. No good to human kind.

It is all a political game between the anti-hunting, liberal, limp wrists and the conservative people who prefer game, to preditors. There was no scientific or GOOD reason to reintroduce a large preditor into Wyoming! We have large preditors, they are called humans.

Wyoming still has the right attitude, our way or no way! This is Wyoming we don't give a damn how you do it back home, or do your little boys in iwoa! If they are not delisted here so what, the tax payers can still keep paying the bill. Remember that come April 15th! And thanks!

Do us a favor and stay there.

More USF&W BS! bangs has said in the past on two occasions that the wolf population would level off if it hadn't already. This was two years ago. Now a 26% growth rate. He is so surprised! What did the moron think? unlimited food source, no threat, virgin territory, hell they can't but help spread all over.

I guess some of us wolf haters might be right, the usf&w service actually didn't know what would happen with a runaway wolf pop. and won't admit it. They never had a clue what would happen with an introduced population, becuase no had ever done it before. But common sense prevails, some thing the feds can not comprehend! Your tax dollars at work!


Wolf numbers continue to grow


By MIKE STARK
Billings Gazette Tuesday, March 20, 2007

BILLINGS, Mont. -- There are now at least 1,300 wolves prowling Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, far more than anyone imagined when the species was reintroduced in the Northern Rockies 12 years ago.

The wolf population has, on average, grown by about 26 percent a year for the past decade. The latest estimates, which summarize counts completed at the end of 2006, show they aren't slowing down.

"I keep thinking we're at the top end of the bubble," said Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "I can't see that there's room for any more, but we'll see."

As the wolf population has grown, so have the reports of cattle, sheep and other livestock being killed. In response, wildlife officials last year killed a record number of wolves after livestock attacks.

It's no surprise that wolves are thriving following reintroduction in 1995 and 1996 in Yellowstone National Park and in central Idaho. Wolves are skilled predators, fast breeders and able to live in different environments.

Over the past decade, they've found plenty to eat and places to settle down.

"It's just really good habitat in the West," Bangs said.

There are at least 316 wolves in Montana, 311 in Wyoming and 673 in Idaho, according to the 2006 federal report.

Bangs said he's surprised that the wolf population continues to grow so steadily. Eventually it will level off, he said, and will likely drop to lower numbers once state agencies take over management and are able to use hunting as a tool to control the population.

The fastest-growing area for wolves last year was in Wyoming outside Yellowstone National Park. The number of wolves jumped by 31 percent, going from 134 in 2005 to 175 in 2006.

With that increase, 123 cattle were reportedly killed by wolves, more than has ever been recorded in Wyoming since the reintroduction. In response, 44 wolves were killed, which is also a record for that time period.

In Montana, the number of wolves grew by 19 percent, nearly all of that in the northwest part of the state, said Carolyn Sime, leader of the wolf program for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

The wolves seem to be squeezing into areas that generally have been occupied by other packs.

"We're not necessarily expanding distribution," Sime said. "We're kind of filling in a bit."

Several packs came and went last year, but the net result was 14 new packs in Montana, including several established by young males that left other packs in the state.

Two packs took heavy hits during the year after preying on livestock. Fifteen wolves were killed from the Sleeping Child pack in southwest Montana, and 11 were taken out of the Spotted Dog pack outside Avon.

Overall, at least 32 cows and four sheep were killed by wolves, according to the annual report, and 53 wolves were removed.

Human activities -- legal and illegal -- are the leading cause of death for Montana's wolves, though that's not the case in Yellowstone.

There, the population grew by about 15 percent last year, from 118 to 136. That growth comes after a decline in 2005 attributed to a canine disease that wiped out scores of pups.

But for those that survived into 2006, they were most likely to die at the jaws of other wolves.

Social strife, especially on the Northern Range where wolf packs are densely clustered, and competition for prey meant more territorial skirmishes that can be deadly.

The number of elk, which are wolves' primary winter prey, has declined 50 percent in the area since 1995. A decreasing prey base and increasing wolf density is likely to mean a decline in wolf numbers over the next several years, biologists said.

Ultimately, the survival of wolves in the Northern Rockies won't be determined by conflicts with other wolves, Bangs said.

"People will decide how many wolves there are and where they're going to live," Bangs said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service said the wolf population has, for seven years, met basic recovery goals of 30 breeding pairs distributed across Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

The agency has recommended removing wolves from the endangered species list. But the process has become mired in a conflict between the federal government and the state of Wyoming.

The latest proposal is to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho and all of Wyoming except for the northwest corner.

If the proposal goes through, Montana and Idaho would take over full management of wolves in those states and would be allowed to use hunting as a way to manage their numbers. In all but the northwest corner of Wyoming -- where they'd still be managed by the federal government -- wolves would be treated as predators and subject to unregulated killing.

As part of the delisting proposal, all three states would have to provide detailed public reports for at least five years on how wolves are being managed.

Ed Bangs and the USFWS would rather lie for credit, than tell the truth for cash.

Steve

I like this statement, when in the past, they said agian and agian, wolves would have very little if any impact on elk numbers. A 50% reduction is a little more than "a little" impact. More lies and BS from eddie and the boys!

The number of elk, which are wolves' primary winter prey, has declined 50 percent in the area since 1995. A decreasing prey base and increasing wolf density is likely to mean a decline in wolf numbers over the next several years, biologists said.

You pretty much know when a federal wildlife employee is lying, when his lips move!

My god kudu, I thought the wolves had gotten you. You've been mighty quiet lately and a few nearly reasonable discussions of wolves were allowed to happen in your absense.

Without VG or (VG reincarnate), the anti-wolf rant quotient has really dropped.

Brent

Well when we are and were, right all along, it is hard to argue that! I have just been busy building a house and lion hunting, and to much of one and not enough of the other!