Seems whenever the subject of expanding wolf populations comes up among hunters of the trans-Mississippi West, many folks go weak-kneed and all foamy at the mouth. Am I the only guy who thinks they have a legitimate role to play in North American ecosystems? I'm no wolf hugger, but I respect these predators for what they are and believe they have a right to exist in the wild. Does this mean that I believe they can be scientifically managed in an atmosphere poisoned by politics and emotion? Not at all.
But to hate them because of their success as predators and seek their elimination seems to border on the hysterical. How does the logic of this view differ from advocating the elimination of lions from Africa? I know of no one who advocates the latter, and many who advocate the former.

Sure they do, but what was transplanted was not the original wolf species. That is one big factor.

The other is over protection. Hopefully that part will be overcome by individual States that were forced to host HUGE northern grey wolves rather than the smaller red wolf type that originally lived in your climes....

Hello Bill/Oregon,

This is a complex issue. Some areas where wolves have been "re-introduced" have seen elk and moose populations decline. Some quite, dramatically. Migration patterns and herd behavior have changed some also. Some good hunting areas in some parts of Wyoming and Montana a decade ago, aren't now. Coincidence? Wolves? Grizzly bears? Warming? Human expansion? Time line seems to favor wolf reintroduction more than other factors. After decades of careful management to enable the big game populations recover to huntable levels (as they were almost wiped out by unregulated market, sustenance, and sport hunting by the early 20th century with the expansion of America across the continent) in some areas hunting is now almost curtailed. This puts the sport hunter who has worked as a conservationist to aide in recovery of large game, in a quandry as he's not been involved in, and has in fact been excluded, from policy decisions at the Federal level that are wiping out his past efforts and the destroying the legacy (huntable populations of big game) he planned to leave for his children. Many get the idea that wolf re-introduction and the individual States not being able to regulate the wolf populations with in their borders is to lower the populations of big game to such a degree as to exclude sport hunting from the game management equation! No big game in huntable populations, no big game hunters in the future!

I personally have nothing against wolf reintroduction but think it has been done in a discriminatory manner. Why limit it to the "trans-Mississippi West"? What is good for wild life management in the Northern Rockies would be good in Appalachia, Cascades, Sierra Nevadas, Catskills, Siskiyous, Ohio and Mississippi River systems, etc.... hell, I bet there were once wolves on Long Island! So I don't see why other parts of the country have been left out of the wonder of wolf re-introduction! A pack in New York City would have prevented the Occupiers on Wall Street and would limit vagrancy in Central Park!

White tail deer have done very well in semi-urban areas to the point that many municipalities hire professional hunters (night vision, suppressed weapons) to cull their populations (and some anti-hunting groups suggest the deer be given birth-control injections to not harm the deer or allow the evil of hunting!) to lessen damage to yards and cars. A healthy wolf population would lessen the impact that the deer have in these areas.

I suspect the indigenous people in Africa who poison the lions that eat their cattle have a different view on the elimination of lion (at least their local populations) than the American sport hunter and the conservationist. Different life styles, needs and therefore, goals with regards to the predator. Maybe similar the ranchers in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and their view of wolves? I doubt that African countries have funds set aside to pay for loss of cattle as they do in Wyoming, and even here, that doesn't compensate adequately for the loss. The phrase "Not in my back yard" seems to echo concerning big, successful predator population in an area.

Just some thoughts. I've only seen 2 wolves in the wild... chasing a moose west of Dubois a few years ago. Didn't see them make their kill if they did. Human hunters are predators too and it is in my nature to hunt and therefore, to kill. And I eat meat. As I said, this is a complex issue.

Thanks for stimulating some thought!

Best,

jpj3

jpj3

Well said, with many great points.

This is 2011 not 1811. With loss of habitat and typical range, drought,over hunting, poor management,severe winters,most game populations can not tolerate two major preditors. Us and them. It is already starting to show in Montana, their hunting season is not meeting the wolf kill goals. Talk of adding more tags to meet the goals. Meaning, hunters are a poor tool for managing wolves. In just a couple of seasons of hunting wolves, it will get worse as the wolf wises up. Aerial gunning, trapping, and poison are the only signifcant means of battleing wolves. It has been proven time and again over history.

the people are mad at the tangible
aspect of destruction of big game herds
the wolf reaps the whirlwind

the anger is generated by the incompetence
of the federal players involved.
and the wolf reaps the whirlwind

the legal wranglings of eco nuts
that stalled the delisting efforts
and the wolf reaps the whirlwind

the loss of jobs, income and
traditional ways of life
and the wolf reaps the whirlwind

they are here to stay
short of an all out eradication commitment,
they are here to stay

but you're not supposed to be able
to see a wolf from the window
of your mini van!

without the "hate"
the wolf lovers will pull off the largest wildlife slaughter since the days of
the buffalo hide hunters.
One of those groups are promising
a 1000 wolves in colorado by 2020.
you think the loss of the northern herd
was significant?
wait till a mass reintroduction in
the richest elk state in the west.
280,000-300,000 head.
and the bleed over into utah and new mexico.

I do believe the wolf belongs in every ecosystem
they once inhabitated.
but i also realize how small this world is
and without aggressive controls on this
mega predator, they can quickly
overwhelm the ecosystem and the managers
of that ecosystem.
they are too efficient a predator
to be allowed to grow unchecked.

and also
there is something about hearing a wolf howl
on the ridge above your camp.
that makes the senses a little finer
the experience a little richer
the surroundings a little wilder.
we are joined at the hip
humans and wolves
and the wolf reaps the whirlwind.....

About 30 years ago, if I recall correctly, Marlon Perkins set up a wolf habitat in the St. Louis Zoo, where it was way far from the other exhibits and not open for viewing, so as not to upset the wolves.

That was then, when there were no wolves in the Western US, and not now, when they seem to be breeding like fleas. We are hearing two stories and the anti-wolf one says that the USFWS has achieved its goals, not the least of which is said to be a bigger budget, without due regard for unintended consequences to the hunting, livestock and farming communities and the State economies that depend on them.

But what do I know, sitting in Japan and reading about severe disruption in the ecosystem. I do know, though, that my homesteading grandparents on the prairie hated them and were extremely glad when they were rid of them.

I was ok with the way things were before. The native wolves were in fact still around and were occasionally seen. They were not devestating any herd anywhere.

The "reintroduction" was not a reintroduction but an introduction of the much larger Grey Wolf. This introduction of a much larger predator into an ecosystem that has been pushed into a much smaller confined area because of mans developement has created a situation where the elk, moose, sheep, and deer( particularily Mule Deer) have all seen a big decline. Why so drastic? Because in essence we, MAN, has herded these food sourses into a small area making it easier for the wolves to hunt them.

Our season has been going for a while now and we have not even come close to killing the number of wolves allowed. It will be a short while and the big game managers will need to restrict the sale of tags in order to sustain the herds. This decline in revenue will result in further damage to wildlife management. Once the populations have dwindled to the point the wolves cannot sustain themselves in the wild they will be into the domestic areas and will probably become listed as vermin with a year round season much like the coyote. The sad thing is our hunting of big game will have suffered even more. It's not great now, can you imagine 1/6th the population of elk to hunt? Yellowstone is the model. Look at what they will admit to as far as losses go and you will see what the rest of the west is in for. Nate

quote:

Posted 12 December 2011 01:45 Hide Post
Sure they do, but what was transplanted was not the original wolf species. That is one big factor.

The other is over protection. Hopefully that part will be overcome by individual States that were forced to host HUGE northern grey wolves rather than the smaller red wolf type that originally lived in your climes....


~Ann

I have heard this claim a lot of times.

With the rapidity that the reintroduced wolves have expanded it seems most unlikely to be even remotely true. There is no natural barrier between the Canadian wolves or the Minnesota wolves and thus to not have had them present in the past a very significant change must have occurred to make them viable now and not in the past.

I have never heard anything to support the claim.

Do you know of anything supporting it?

The red wolf (Canis lupus rufus[1], formerly Canis rufus) is a North American canid which once roamed throughout the Southeastern United States and is a glacial period survivor of the Late Pleistocene epoch.[4] Based on fossil and archaeological evidence, the original red wolf range extended throughout the Southeast, from the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, north to the Ohio River Valley and central Pennsylvania, and west to central Texas and southeastern Missouri. w Historical habitats included forests, swamps, and coastal prairies, where it was an apex predator. The red wolf became extinct in the wild by 1980. 1987 saw a reintroduction in northeastern North Carolina through a captive breeding program and the animals are considered to be successfully breeding in the wild

Well Bill, You obviously don't live have to live with the bastards and watch how they have changed the elk herds in our area. Everybody that loves wolves should have them live in their back yard for a while. Take care. Daryl.

Well---

-The laws of nature show us that the farther north, the general body size of the species increases. A whitetail in Mexico= is smaller than a Northern Alberta whitetail. A Moose in Utah is smaller than a moose in the Yukon. A mule deer in Arizona is smaller than a mule deer in Saskatchewan. And a wolf in Alberta is LARGER than a wolf from Mexico. The wolves transplanted to Wyoming were from a northern strain that are larger in body size than the historical records of wolves killed in Wyoming.

-The ungulates in the areas where wolves were transplanted had gone 20-50 generations without wolves. In short, these animals do not know how to survive with wolves. Thus we see moose populations dive with calf counts of 0 in some populations.

-Finally, the "Eco-system" spin.... There is NO historical "ecosystem" to place wolves in. Man has altered the "eco-system" with roads, ranches, cities, towns, ski resorts, habitat changes, hunting, etc.

I know the above statements won't change any minds.

Every effort was made to increase the Wolf population to 300 in Wisconsin.That was to be the number we would have to live with.Now its over 1,000 and The Wi.DNR is not pushing for a controlled hunt.We are trying to establish a Huntable Elk population in Wi.,but it will never happen because Wolf and Bear predation has the herd on a downward spiral.Where I live I used to be able to shoot 4 or 5 Does a year besides my Buck.In 15 days of Hunting I saw "one" deer this year.This is not all because of Wolves,but they sure do their share .Some times leaving things alone is the best thing and when we had no protection on Wolves things were definately better.

quote:

The "reintroduction" was not a reintroduction but an introduction of the much larger Grey Wolf

This could be better said as an infestation with a non native species.


What really maddens me is the denial that took place in the 1990-s when they were starting to pop up. I had a few head butting contests with wardens and even biologists about their relocation into the Shoshone county area back then and I really believe it was privi information and not all that should have known about it did not know about the reintroduction.


Its been Pandoras box since and Idaho knows it now.


Cal30

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Seems whenever the subject of expanding wolf populations comes up among hunters of the trans-Mississippi West, many folks go weak-kneed and all foamy at the mouth. Am I the only guy who thinks they have a legitimate role to play in North American ecosystems? I'm no wolf hugger, but I respect these predators for what they are and believe they have a right to exist in the wild. Does this mean that I believe they can be scientifically managed in an atmosphere poisoned by politics and emotion? Not at all.
But to hate them because of their success as predators and seek their elimination seems to border on the hysterical. How does the logic of this view differ from advocating the elimination of lions from Africa? I know of no one who advocates the latter, and many who advocate the former.

My belief is that first of all your assertions of being weak kneed and Hystrerical, tell that to the ranchers loosing their livestock and to the rural communities in midwest Wyoming who have had to put high fences around their schoolyards for the saftey their children.

Predators like wolves and people simply dont play together well. And what was wrong with them existing in Canada and Alaska? Why bring them back, what was the point?

I believe that the point was to appease the anti-hunter crowd. Because they know that such an element would put a huge strain on an already strained favorite American pastime.

I am a nature lover, but I also believe that they were eliminated from the majority of the lower 48 years ago for good reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Wstrnhuntr:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
Seems whenever the subject of expanding wolf populations comes up among hunters of the trans-Mississippi West, many folks go weak-kneed and all foamy at the mouth. Am I the only guy who thinks they have a legitimate role to play in North American ecosystems? I'm no wolf hugger, but I respect these predators for what they are and believe they have a right to exist in the wild. Does this mean that I believe they can be scientifically managed in an atmosphere poisoned by politics and emotion? Not at all.
But to hate them because of their success as predators and seek their elimination seems to border on the hysterical. How does the logic of this view differ from advocating the elimination of lions from Africa? I know of no one who advocates the latter, and many who advocate the former.

My belief is that first of all your assertions of being weak kneed and Hystrerical, tell that to the ranchers loosing their livestock and to the rural communities in midwest Wyoming who have had to put high fences around their schoolyards for the saftey their children.

Predators like wolves and people simply dont play together well. And what was wrong with them existing in Canada and Alaska? Why bring them back, what was the point?

I believe that the point was to appease the anti-hunter crowd. Because they know that such an element would put a huge strain on an already strained favorite American pastime.

I am a nature lover, but I also believe that they were eliminated from the majority of the lower 48 years ago for good reasons.

Hell Yes!

Some interesting points here.
Ann, you are right. A little research shows at least 37 recognized subspecies of the gray wolf, including domestic dogs, whose DNA differs only 1.8% from Canis lupus lupus vs. 4 % for the coyote.
The wolf we once had in the Pacific Northwest was a strikingly handsome creature with reddish fur and a black face mask, Canis lupus fuscus. It was at the middle of average wolf sizes, running about 5 feet 6 inches long and weighing 80 to 108 pounds. Extinct since 1940.
There are only two species of wolves in North America, the gray and the red, with most of the variants including so-called timber wolves being gray subspecies.
I have no idea what the average size is of the wolves that have moved into Oregon from Idaho.

Right Bill, I do think the original wolf found CONUS was a smaller, lighter animal that the big northern timber wolves being used to establish wolves again. It's just not a good idea at all.