# Wolves Another side to the coin gdg



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

http://cryingwolfmovie.com/

MP


----------



## 43x (Mar 29, 2009)




----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

That is a good video.


----------



## TollerLover (Aug 25, 2008)

Very well done. Jeffrey is a remarkable young man.


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

Now there's a young man that has his head screwed on straight! He sought out the TRUTH instead of taking the "opinions" of all his professors and their liberal cohorts. 

Really, the people that are living in these areas that are affected by the wolf should have had much more of a say in whether the wolves should've been reintroduced! They said what they had to at the time but were ignored for a more "socialist" view! 

I don't know about any of you hunters out there but I am infuriated by the fact that they started all this by using MY Pittman/Robertson funds! 

BHB


----------



## bamaflinger (Jan 16, 2012)

I really enjoyed that, thanks for posting.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Well, an interesting piece, but certainly not an unbiased look at the situation. Some of the statements by the folks interviewed were pretty misleading especially when reporting that the biologists had said that Yellowstone could support around 100 wolves and then showing a graph of the wolf population increasing to 1600 or so and implying that now there were many times what was recommended when in fact the Yellowstone wolf population peaked around 120 animals and is now below 100. Those photos of all the "wolf pelts" are clearly mostly coyotes and in the only one where you can definitely see some wolves, I only picked out three. They also imply that all those ranchers are raising animals on their own property when many are certainly grazing BLM and other PUBLIC lands which technically belong to all of us, as do the lands that the outfitters are hunting. Since that is PUBLIC land I get a say too, and I say we should have a well managed wolf population on those lands. I have no problem with managing the wolf populations, but unfortunately for those folks, well managed means extirpated. Put a season on them, control their numbers, charge for tags and let the outfitters make a living that way. I don't mind some of my tax money going to compensate the ranchers for proven wolf kills (I mean, after all, we are already subsidizing them with cheap grazing rights on PUBLIC lands in many areas of the west.) I won't even address the "God made us the master of the world so we can do whatever we want" argument as those folks simply can't be reasoned with. 

As outside reading, I would point you to a couple of essays;
"Lost Margins in the Abandoned Farm" Eugene M. Poirot, 1964
"The Value of Diversity", Douglass H. Pimlott, 1969


----------



## GBUSMCR (Oct 5, 2004)

Well worth watching and supporting!
Yep, and I'm all for fire ants in Texas. I'm all for wolves in Yellowstone BUT NOT outside of the park.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

BHB said:


> I don't know about any of you hunters out there but I am infuriated by the fact that they started all this by using MY Pittman/Robertson funds!
> 
> BHB


I have no problem with my PR funds being used to promote wildlife diversity. (kinda funny that the guy who first mentioned PR got the name wrong).


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

HPL said:


> ...Since that is PUBLIC land I get a say too, and I say we should have a well managed wolf population on those lands. ...


I'll bet that if you lived and worked in those areas affected by the wolves you would have a different take on the matter.

BHB


----------



## GBUSMCR (Oct 5, 2004)

Years ago New Mexico tried to get non-consumptive users (bird watchers, hikers, etc) to buy a "habitat" stamp to support non-game species. Non-consumptive users wouldn't buy the stamp. So, the solution was to require all hunters to buy the stamp. Most every state now has a habitat stamp required. Guess its that control issue. I do have a problem with how they use the PR money. I hear biodiversity all the time and its a pretty far reaching term applied to lots of things. If you want biodiversity, then start a tax to fund that program. Going to need something anyway when sportsman finally say enough is enough and push to repeal the PR.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

BHB said:


> I'll bet that if you lived and worked in those areas affected by the wolves you would have a different take on the matter.
> 
> BHB


Perhaps, but I doubt it. I live in an area where we have to be aware of rattlesnakes, alligators, coyotes, etc. and although I am careful, I am not advocating the extirpation of any of these. I don't swerve to run over rattlers (and in fact swerve to miss them when I can), although will remove or kill those I find close to the house, and scout any pond where I might swim my dog very carefully so as to minimize the threat posed by gators.


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

HPL said:


> Perhaps, but I doubt it. I live in an area where we have to be aware of rattlesnakes, alligators, coyotes, etc. and although I am careful, I am not advocating the extirpation of any of these. I don't swerve to run over rattlers (and in fact swerve to miss them when I can), although will remove or kill those I find close to the house, and scout any pond where I might swim my dog very carefully so as to minimize the threat posed by gators.


I understand... but let me pose a question. If you lived in wolf country and were raising cattle and a family wouldn't you remove the threat to your livelihood and your pets and possibly your family just as you are removing the gators and rattlesnakes close to your home? 

It is the same for these ranchers. Removing the wolves lets them have a living and protect their family and pets. Yes, wolves kill dogs ferociously whenever they come into their territory, and it's all their territory! And also, they can't just be "relocated" because they travel much more than gators!

I'm just challenging you to look at it from their point of view. The difference between rattlesnakes that come into your yard and gators in your ponds are not any different from the wolf that kills your calves and dogs. Except that when they kill your calves that is your livelihood, not your hobby.

BHB


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

I found the movie to be pretty biased myself.


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

HPL said:


> Perhaps, but I doubt it. I live in an area where we have to be aware of rattlesnakes, alligators, coyotes, etc. and although I am careful, I am not advocating the extirpation of any of these. I don't swerve to run over rattlers (and in fact swerve to miss them when I can), although will remove or kill those I find close to the house, and scout any pond where I might swim my dog very carefully so as to minimize the threat posed by gators.


HPL, you are a nice person with a lot of "smarts". So here it is.......how many of your own dogs lost to gators would it take for you to want the gators really, really well controlled. Another way to look at is if the wolves are killing the percentage of your livestock ( if you made your living raising livestock ) that represents your profit for the year and you can no longer afford to take care of your family how would you feel then. Not trying to pick on you and I do respect you. A coyote that raids free ranging chickens will come back day after day to the same flock of chickens taking at least one evey day ( more if it has pups to feed ). I'm pretty sure that wolves will tend to hunt in the same area till they deplete the game or livestock in that area.


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

BHB said:


> I understand... but let me pose a question. If you lived in wolf country and were raising cattle and a family wouldn't you remove the threat to your livelihood and your pets and possibly your family just as you are removing the gators and rattlesnakes close to your home?
> 
> It is the same for these ranchers. Removing the wolves lets them have a living and protect their family and pets. Yes, wolves kill dogs ferociously whenever they come into their territory, and it's all their territory! And also, they can't just be "relocated" because they travel much more than gators!
> 
> ...


I was too slow typing. I see you covered the subject very well. Thank you. I think you did a better job than I did


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

Tangential to the discussion is the state habitat stamps. In NM, the state G&F takes that money, sits down with federal land managers that have habitat improvement projects planned, and citizen advisors. Subcommittees of citizens cover different regions of the state, and them come together at a state meeting. The feds propose the projects and we (the citizens) rank them. The money is allocated based on the money available and the ranking of the committees. Every citizen on my committee is a hunter and/or fisherman, so we have a strong voice in how that money is spent.


----------



## okie drake (Dec 5, 2011)

BHB said:


> I understand... but let me pose a question. If you lived in wolf country and were raising cattle and a family wouldn't you remove the threat to your livelihood and your pets and possibly your family just as you are removing the gators and rattlesnakes close to your home?
> 
> It is the same for these ranchers. Removing the wolves lets them have a living and protect their family and pets. Yes, wolves kill dogs ferociously whenever they come into their territory, and it's all their territory! And also, they can't just be "relocated" because they travel much more than gators!
> 
> ...


You might consider the already mentioned distinction that in many cases said ranchers are grazing on public, not private, land.....correct?


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Those of you pointing out that folks who make a living raising livestock in what was originally and is becoming again "wolf country" are probably facing some challenges that are new to them are absolutely correct. That I don't face those particular challenges is also correct. I was however at one time responsible for a herd of goats on South Texas brushland and we certainly lost animals to coyotes. I had to have effective fences and gather the goats EVERY evening and bring them in to paddock. We didn't attempt to eradicate the coyotes. I realize that this is not a practical solution for cattle ranchers in the west, but is just an example of finding ways to work around a situation. You will also notice that I haven't said that wolves should be given a free pass. It should be relatively easy with the amount of data currently available to establish the size of the population required to maintain sufficient genetic diversity to keep the wolf population healthy. That should be the starting point for wolf management. The ranchers utilizing public lands should basically be told that we, the people of the United States are willing to lease some of our land to them for the purpose of raising livestock with these conditions: we have decided that we like bio-diversity on our lands and where the ranchers' interests collide with our interest in maintaining that diversity, our interests supersede those of the ranchers. That because we see the ranchers activities as also desirable, we will work with them to minimize these collisions and will, when appropriate, take measures to allow the reduction of the wolf population and also when appropriate, compensate them for losses incurred when OUR wolves kill their livestock grazing on OUR land.
I did object the the very biased and misleading tenor of the video. No question they had a side and that they poo-pooed the scientists unless they were their scientists, one of whom seemed to base his scientific position on his religious beliefs. 
As for the outfitters, they can convert some of their operations to guiding wolf hunters, and especially, guiding the ever-increasing numbers of nature photographers to photograph wolves, and other denizens of the wild. I would direct anyone interested in tapping into the profit potential of helping photographers get the shot to look up "The Rio Grande Valley Land Fund", "The Coastal Bend Wildlife Photo Contest", "Images for Conservation Fund", or contact John Martin in McAllen, Texas. 
Professions and ways of earning a living change over time. How many of ya'll are or even know a wheelwright?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

HPL said:


> How many of ya'll are or even know a wheelwright?


Hanson Wheel & Wagon just N of Mitchell SD . 

Those ranchers think the leaseholds are their property. 

The elk around Gardiner needed thinning, but those by Cody did not. Neither side in this issue is very honest - so they will get what they deserve. Lots of money available on this issue, when that runs out then things will be resolved .


----------



## GBUSMCR (Oct 5, 2004)

Well, establishing what is the right number of wolves is the issue is it not? Pro-wolf groups are holding that issue at bay with continual court filings. (Also amazing is that the pro-wolf groups are then allowed to used the Equal Access to Justice Act to have the taxpayers pay the pro-wolf groups lawyer fees.) I'm sure you'd find some fault with a directive that told you that you could not remove rattlesnakes and gators from areas close to you. The fact wolves are pack animals puts a harder twist in things. 

I appreciate that ranchers are trying to provide a "Made in the USA" product on public lands. Perhaps grazing fees should be eliminated given the impact of wolves on the value of that grazing land. For some reason, I just doubt that the economic spending of people wanting to see wolves matches, let alone exceeds the economic benefit from ranching and hunting.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Marvin S said:


> Hanson Wheel & Wagon just N of Mitchell SD .
> .



Because I specialize to a great extent in equine and livestock photography, I have met a wheelwright or two in my time too, but there aren't many of them left. Just a case of economic natural selection.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

GBUSMCR said:


> Well, establishing what is the right number of wolves is the issue is it not? Pro-wolf groups are holding that issue at bay with continual court filings. (Also amazing is that the pro-wolf groups are then allowed to used the Equal Access to Justice Act to have the taxpayers pay the pro-wolf groups lawyer fees.) I'm sure you'd find some fault with a directive that told you that you could not remove rattlesnakes and gators from areas close to you. The fact wolves are pack animals puts a harder twist in things.
> 
> I appreciate that ranchers are trying to provide a "Made in the USA" product on public lands. Perhaps grazing fees should be eliminated given the impact of wolves on the value of that grazing land. For some reason, I just doubt that the economic spending of people wanting to see wolves matches, let alone exceeds the economic benefit from ranching and hunting.


It can't all be about economics or we might as well fill in and plow up all the potholes and plant corn. Then all the ducks etc. can find some other place to lay their eggs and raise their families.


----------



## 7pntail (Jan 20, 2010)

Just watched it. Eye opening and interesting. Still absorbing the documentary. 

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

HPL said:


> It should be relatively easy with the amount of data currently available to establish the size of the population required to maintain sufficient genetic diversity to keep the wolf population healthy. That should be the starting point for wolf management.


Wisconsins own DNR originally wanted the wolf recovery to be 80 wolves in 10 packs by 2000. The DNR studies show that the wolf population is now around 800 and growing. I think that means about 700 wolves need to be removed now. I'm good with that. That leaves 100 to live in harmony with and probably alot less damage from wolves.

This is from Wisconsins DNR site: 2010 study
*Wolf Depredation on Domestic Animals and Other Nuisance Problems 

*Wolf depredation to livestock occurred on 47 farms in 2010, compared to 28 farms in 2009, and exceeds the previous record of 32 farms in 2008 (Table 5a). Total livestock depredation in 2010 included: 63 cattle killed (47 calves), 5 cattle injured, 6 sheep killed (4 lambs), 1 goat injured, and 6 farm deer killed. A total of 25 to 27 packs and 2 to 4 loners/dispersers were involved in depredation on livestock. Twenty-three of the depredating packs were detected in the previous winter and were 13% of the known packs in the state. Four verified cases of wolf harassment or threats to livestock were also recorded during 2010 (Table 5a). 
Thirty-four cases of wolf depredations on dogs were detected during 2010, including 14 cases of wolf depredations on pet dogs near homes, and 20 cases of depredations on dogs in hunting and training situations (Table 5b). A total of 24 dogs were killed and 14 were injured by wolves by 21 different packs (12% of packs in the state in 2010) and 1 loner/disperser. Among hunting dogs 19 were killed and 4 were injured (including 1 bird dog), and among pet dogs, 6 were killed and 10 were injured. An injury to a bird hunting dog in Jackson County on 21 September 2010, was the first depredation on a dog in a bird hunting situation ever recorded in Wisconsin. The total kill on dogs by wolves was less than the 25 killed in 2006, but the 14 injured in 2010 exceeded the previous high of 11 in 2009. Rate of wolf depredation on hunting dogs was similar to recent years, but rate of depredation on pet dogs was the highest ever recorded in the state. A total of 5 packs were involved in depredation on both dogs (all pet dogs) and livestock. A total of 31 packs (~17 % of state packs) would have been likely exposed to control actions if wolves had been delisted (packs attacking livestock or pets near homes), and with typical success rate of these controls, wolves would have been removed from about half these packs. No authority for lethal controls, accept in human safety situations, existed for the Wisconsin DNR in 2010.​


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

The biggest problem that I see with this is that the people that instigated the reintroduction and are the loudest voices against the management of the populations(not wanting any wolf to be taken out) have the underlying agenda to convince others that all animal life is above human life. Their agenda is to make us as humans go extinct and let animals take over. 

So, really what they want is for ranchers to go out of business because cattle and sheep "cause so much global warming" and for the rest of us to eat nothing but tofu and seaweed. Besides, all those cattle and sheep deserve to live, too, don't they? Then all the elk and deer will return to their former numbers and the lions and bears and wolves will all lay down with the lambs and calves and all will eat grass together! It's a utopia that isn't based in sound reasoning or reality! 

Whether you believe in God or not, whether you believe in God's word the bible or not there is some sound wisdom within it's pages. The people that are so loud in this controversy are the ones that have become worshipers of animals. These people are worshipping and serving the creature instead of the Creator. They have exchanged the truth for a lie. "Professing to be wise, they became fools," (Rom.1:22

BHB


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

BHB said:


> The biggest problem that I see with this is that the people that instigated the reintroduction and are the loudest voices against the management of the populations(not wanting any wolf to be taken out) have the underlying agenda to convince others that all animal life is above human life. Their agenda is to make us as humans go extinct and let animals take over.
> 
> So, really what they want is for ranchers to go out of business because cattle and sheep "cause so much global warming" and for the rest of us to eat nothing but tofu and seaweed.
> 
> BHB


A bit hyperbolic, don't you think? I know many people who support the re-introduction of wolves into historic habitat, most are hunters and/or wildlife professionals. These same people also support the Endangered Species Act, and the preservation of wild places. None advocate the extinction of mankind (a pretty ludicrous idea anyway with 7 BILLION of us). Most of my better educated and more intelligent friends do advocate human population control (doesn't have to be imposed by government) and believe that mankind would be much better off if there were fewer of us. Personally I find it quite ironic and a bit confusing to hear people who get their greatest pleasures from activities that require wild areas advocating for the unrestricted growth of the human population.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL, don't you tend to find that all arguments tend to be biased, yours included? You don't see anything being put out on this from those supporting the reintroduction that are any more fair on the facts than this video. 

"I know many people who support the re-introduction..." Well you also know many who don't, and most of those are hunters too. 

"Most of the better educated and more intelligent friends do advocate..." your implication being that those against you are uneducated and less intelligent. 

That's not an argument, that's just sophisticated name calling.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Hpl still doesn't understand.....

Ok Hpl what if.....they released a wild snakes from africa that ate your friends and your paychecks. Would you still be all for having them all over and support making it a crime to harm them? 

Remember these are not the wolfs that were originally here, about the difference between a lab and a great dane.


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

Maybe those 700 extra Wisconsin wolves should be captured and then released in Texas.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> HPL, don't you tend to find that all arguments tend to be biased, yours included? You don't see anything being put out on this from those supporting the reintroduction that are any more fair on the facts than this video.
> 
> "I know many people who support the re-introduction..." Well you also know many who don't, and most of those are hunters too.
> 
> ...


No question that I put more credence on arguments and opinions based on scientific investigation than those based strictly on emotion and that I tend to respect the opinions of those on the right hand side of the bell curve more than those on the left. No apologies for that. Of course not everyone that has a dissenting opinion is either uneducated or stupid nor are all who feel as I do formally educated or brilliant. You would also be correct that I have some strong biases, but most are based on biological principles, and the minute someone attempts to conflate scientific investigation with religious texts, they lose me completely. 
I do appreciate that you at least recognized that my name calling is sophisticated.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Illinois Bob said:


> Maybe those 700 extra Wisconsin wolves should be captured and then released in Texas.


You did get that I have said that I am not against controlling the wolf population and that I even said explicitly that controlled hunting could be a revenue source for the area where there are surplus animals, right? Problem is, I think that you probably believe that one wolf constitutes a surplus. Perhaps you don't hunt and wouldn't miss the total extirpation of North America's waterfowl so it would be OK with you if all the marshes in the prairie pothole region were drained and turned into either farmland or rangeland. Much of that land is federally owned, but it would provide a living for many families and a direct benefit for many more in food production if the govt. would lease it to farmers and ranchers. It would, of course make the area useless for nesting waterfowl, but would be of great benefit to mankind.
You also may or may not know that Texas lost its most interesting native canine with the extinction of the Red Wolf sometime in the last couple of decades.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

How about the biological priniciple that the speciies of wolf introduced was never here in the first place? And is nearly twice as large?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I'm willing to wager that wolf numbers in WI are grossly underestimated. I'd guess we have at least double the number the DNR claims, if not more. That's the real problem...accurate numbers. It's not like we can mail them a census form..


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Who said that the wolf was "NEVER" here.
I agree with HPL.
I grew up in the northwoods of northern Wis.
I still hunt back home.( Oneida County)
The bears this yr. got my deer during bow season and got to it(my deer) before me during the gun season.By the time I got down from the treestand and trailed the deer I saw that it was being eaten by a bear (from a distance) :-x
I also saw(by camera)a bear killing a fawn.
My brothers have also witnessed this. 
As far as dogs killed by wolves.........
Wolves are creatures of territory. A dog that runs into his space is fairgame. That means bear hunters as well as bird dogs.
Should we control the population YES.
Should we totally eliminate the wolf population? NO
This is my 2cents only.
Sue


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

TPhillips said:


> Hpl still doesn't understand.....
> 
> Ok Hpl what if.....they released a wild snakes from africa that ate your friends and your paychecks. Would you still be all for having them all over and support making it a crime to harm them?
> 
> Remember these are not the wolfs that were originally here, about the difference between a lab and a great dane.


First, cite multiple learned, peer reviewed papers that would back up the claim that the C. lupus re-introduced into the lower 48 is substantially different from the C. lupus that originally existed there, not just anecdotal whining from the anti-wolf crowd. 
Next, find a closer analogue to the original population to use in introductions, then we'll talk.
And again, as I keep saying, although I oppose extirpation and am in favor of re-establishment (yes even in Texas), I am not opposed to control.

I would also like to know how many ranchers have actually lost stock to the wolves. Are we talking about 1000 families losing animals, 10,000, or just a few dozen or a few score?


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

I would love to see a reliable source that shows that the reintroduced wolves are 'bigger' and 'meaner' than the ones that were here before. Everything I have read says that's a myth...and honestly it isn't like Canada's too far from Idaho and wolves know boundaries.

I support the wise use of our resources and rely on Fish and Game to use science (not opinion) to maintain healthy populations of all wildlife. I am glad that management is now in the state's hands and that there are wolf seasons too. And wolves aren't the only predator that kills livestock but they seem to be the only one that ranchers complain about (and incidentally, the only ones ranchers are reimbursed for livestock loss). And I recognize it is a challenge for people...but I am not saying we need to have a ton of wolves nor that the rancher shouldn't be allowed to protect their investment....but I just can never support the idea that since man has 'dominion' over the Earth that gives the human species the right to completely decimate entire populations based on their current needs and desires.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> No question that I put more credence on arguments and opinions based on scientific investigation than those based strictly on emotion and that I tend to respect the opinions of those on the right hand side of the bell curve more than those on the left. No apologies for that.



So far your arguments have really not had much fact, but just your opinion supported by most of the smart people you know.

The truth is there are facts that support both sides of this argument, and opinions influence which of those facts we tend to give more weight to.

Those that argued for the reintroduction of a "controlled population" of wolves in Yellowstone had no intention of allowing that population to be controlled. They knew that once they got wolves back in those places that Americans raised on Bambi would never allow any kind of effective control. They can make the ranchers and hunters look like the bad guys.

I would bet that if left up to the populations of the areas that were affected by this, there would be no wolves there. We are really quick to tell others what they should do, or what they should be happy to live with as long as it doesn't affect us. It's easy to say that if it did affect you you're opinion would remain the same.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> First, site multiple learned, peer reviewed papers that would back up the claim that the C. lupus re-introduced into the lower 48 is substantially different from the C. lupus that originally existed there, not just anecdotal whining from the anti-wolf crowd.
> Next, find a closer analogue to the original population to use in introductions, then we'll talk.


So those who disagree with you need to cite peer reviewed papers but you can just present your opinion?


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> I'm willing to wager that wolf numbers in WI are grossly underestimated. I'd guess we have at least double the number the DNR claims, if not more. That's the real problem...accurate numbers. It's not like we can mail them a census form..


;-);-);-) You could try going door to door, (or in this case den to den) like they did on the sea islands in SC where there weren't many mailboxes!

No one has mentioned anything about the rate of incidence of CWD in the elk and deer herds. I am curious if it has been reduced because of the new predators keeping herd sizes down. I know that it first cropped up as a major issue when the herds were so very large.

Me, I just treat wolf like snake and gator. Avoid 'em!


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> So those who disagree with you need to cite peer reviewed papers but you can just present your opinion?


Well, yeah, since you are the one basing your argument on the claim that the animal re-established is in some way substantially different from the original resident you do need to back that up with more than just your say so. 
Actually, I have recently referenced several papers to explain how I have come to my position. Go back and read my posts more carefully and you will see that I have even included a couple of fairly extensive quotes from significant folks in the field (one of those is in the original wolf thread).

Here is one for you: The Mammals of the World, third edition, By Ernest P. Walker, Florence Warnick, Sybil E. Hamlet, Kenneth I. Lange, Mary A. Davis, Howard E. Uible, Patricia F. Wright Revised for 3rd edition by John L. Paradiso, Johns Hopkins Press

"Two species of wolves are recognized: Canis lupus, the grey or timber wolf, and Canis rufus, the red wolf." So, that would seem to indicate that the wolves introduced to the lower 48 are the same species that was there in the past.


----------



## duckkiller (Jan 18, 2012)

Seems to me sometimes a good education is wasted when common sense is all you need. I just got to shake my head and laugh.


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

The cows are already out of the barn on wolf reintroduction. But now sounds like a great time for the States to have the right to control the wolf population. I recognize that the Federal government has a seat at the table....but the prob is they are video conferencing in from DC. Those that have the most interest should have the most say. 

But we must recognize that sometimes what is best for us individually is not whats best for us as a society or an ecosystem. Manage the population and renegotiate the grazing rights leases to include reimbursement for wolf predation. Earmark the wolf tag revenue for the reimbursement fund.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL said:


> First, site multiple learned, peer reviewed papers that would back up the claim that the C. lupus re-introduced into the lower 48 is substantially different from the C. lupus that originally existed there, not just anecdotal whining from the anti-wolf crowd.
> Next, find a closer analogue to the original population to use in introductions, then we'll talk.
> And again, as I keep saying, although I oppose extirpation and am in favor of re-establishment (yes even in Texas), I am not opposed to control.
> 
> I would also like to know how many ranchers have actually lost stock to the wolves. Are we talking about 1000 families losing animals, 10,000, or just a few dozen or a few score?


Our friends in Canada are doing their best to trap as many as possible. I had dinner with an outfitter at a friends house after the sportsman show. He company is northeast of Vancouver BC a few hours. Last year, he said there was not a single customer who did not fill their wolf tag hunting while he also filled his snare lines. He said as fast as he can trap/shoot them they are replaced. He said he expressed some concern to the biologist. The biologist said they've so heavily overpopulated to the east, they just continue to spill into areas as rapidly as they are removed. The biologist said there will be no changes current regulations until something is done to slow their breeding and spread. He asked him to book more wolf only trips. 

But, from HPL's opinion, I can see he will not take the first hand experience of those who are on the ground ranching or hunting. Will only take the written word of a biologist who writes from his desk in DC and his writings obviously must protect a politcal agenda to ensure no money or support is lost.... 

I'll send a link to the outfitter if anyone is interested in checking it out. Great guys, my friend has been up on the trap lines with them two times. A guy who has hunted/trapped around the world. He speaks very highly of this group and their trip.


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

HPL said:


> I think that you probably believe that one wolf constitutes a surplus.


I never said that. I'm fine with the numbers that the DNR biologists say that the area would support. With the federal government not letting the state control them though they have gone way past the numbers the state said were needed to keep a healthy population. The excess wolves shoud be removed.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

> Aren’t the wolves that were re-introduced in other places non-native or different from earlier wolves?
> 
> No. The belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states is erroneous for several reasons.
> 
> ...


http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#7


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL said:


> "Two species of wolves are recognized: Canis lupus, the grey or timber wolf, and Canis rufus, the red wolf." So, that would seem to indicate that the wolves introduced to the lower 48 are the same species that was there in the past.


So, a good field trial lab and a show labs have the same body type and weight charactaristics huh? They have have the same latin name??


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

MarkinMissouri said:


> But we must recognize that sometimes what is best for us individually is not whats best for us as a society or an ecosystem. Manage the population and renegotiate the grazing rights leases to include reimbursement for wolf predation. Earmark the wolf tag revenue for the reimbursement fund.


Bingo!! A succinct statement of my position.


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

2tall said:


> No one has mentioned anything about the rate of incidence of CWD in the elk and deer herds. I am curious if it has been reduced because of the new predators keeping herd sizes down. I know that it first cropped up as a major issue when the herds were so very large.


Very good point. We all know that there are many reasons why herd numbers fluctuate. The wolves are only one factor. Would be nice to get more hard data and less PR spin from both sides of the argument in general. What ever happened to science being unbiased?


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> Well, yeah, since you are the one basing your argument on the claim that the animal re-established is in some way substantially different from the original resident you do need to back that up with more than just your say so.
> Actually, I have recently referenced several papers to explain how I have come to my position. Go back and read my posts more carefully and you will see that I have even included a couple of fairly extensive quotes from significant folks in the field (one of those is in the original wolf thread).
> 
> Here is one for you: The Mammals of the World, third edition, By Ernest P. Walker, Florence Warnick, Sybil E. Hamlet, Kenneth I. Lange, Mary A. Davis, Howard E. Uible, Patricia F. Wright Revised for 3rd edition by John L. Paradiso, Johns Hopkins Press
> ...


For the record, I didn't argue anything of the sort. I also don't see your reference on this thread. 

Since you brought it up though, I assume you are using that reference in support of the position that the wolves reintroduced are the same because they are the same species? If so, don't you think that is a bit disingenuous since there are a number of subspecies of canis lupus, and canis lupus includes the domestic dog? There's quite a bit of variation in size etc among the subspecies. If I follow your argument, then releasing feral dogs into the area would be the same thing since they're also canis lupus the same species right?

You realize the same (or same kind) of biologists that pushed for the reintroduction in the west also pushed for the reintroduction of red wolves in the east. That's some pretty questionable science though since the red wolf population was so low that they only survived by cross breeding with feral and domestic dogs, so the last "red wolves" they used as a source to repopulate with were at least some percentage not red wolves at all, but a completely different species - canis lupus.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

HPL said:


> Well, yeah, since you are the one basing your argument on the claim that the animal re-established is in some way substantially different from the original resident you do need to back that up with more than just your say so.
> Actually, I have recently referenced several papers to explain how I have come to my position. Go back and read my posts more carefully and you will see that I have even included a couple of fairly extensive quotes from significant folks in the field (one of those is in the original wolf thread).
> 
> Here is one for you: The Mammals of the World, third edition, By Ernest P. Walker, Florence Warnick, Sybil E. Hamlet, Kenneth I. Lange, Mary A. Davis, Howard E. Uible, Patricia F. Wright Revised for 3rd edition by John L. Paradiso, Johns Hopkins Press
> ...


1. Bergmann's Rule is applicable to wolves
2. There are many more than 2 subspecies of wolves. I have no idea what the original subspecies in that area was nor do I know which was reintroduced. But the wolves in Manitoba are different than the ones in Michigan.
All wolves and dogs are classified as Canis Lupis, it is the word that follows that determines the subspecies. ie Canis Lupis Familiaris would be your labrador retirever(and other domestic dogs).


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/10/03/where-did-the-yellowstone-elk-go/#ixzz1Zqxm9Bqk


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> So, a good field trial lab and a show labs have the same body type and weight charactaristics huh? They have have the same latin name??


Somebody correct me when I'm wrong but I think that you could expand that statement to be a comparision of a wolf hound and a miniature poodle. Aren't they all the same species just different sub species?


----------



## okie drake (Dec 5, 2011)

Some pretty good commentary/reading here.

Given the discussion back and forth, has anyone specifically noted that they would not support management to the goal levels set at re-introduction?

Seems like it's being assumed that the camps are A) No management and B) No wolves. From reading what's actually being said, I don't see that to be the case.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> But, from HPL's opinion, I can see he will not take the first hand experience of those who are on the ground ranching or hunting. Will only take the written word of a biologist who writes from his desk in DC and his writings obviously must protect a politcal agenda to ensure no money or support is lost....


Actually am more interested what field biologists have to say. Seems to me the issue of sub-species could be determined relatively easily by going into museums and university collections and doing some biometric measuring on the skins and skulls from the turn of the century and then comparing them with the measurements of recently harvested animals. One could also probably do some DNA testing to get family relationships. I bet that one would find out that the current wolves fall within the norms of the ones collected in the 1800's and early 1900's. There were thousands and thousands of animals killed during that time and I am sure that there are extensive records on those animals. I personally equate most of the anecdotal information with the folks who see Bigfoot or the Chupacabra. 
It should be pointed out that there are very few people alive who can remember the original wolves from the areas about which we are talking.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

MarkinMissouri said:


> But we must recognize that sometimes what is best for us individually is not whats best for us as a society or an ecosystem. Manage the population and renegotiate the grazing rights leases to include reimbursement for wolf predation. Earmark the wolf tag revenue for the reimbursement fund.



I agree that sometimes what is best for us individually is not what's best for us as a society or an ecosystem. I find it curious that the only way that that argument is ever used by environmentalists is more: What is best for YOU individually is not what's best for us as a society or an ecosystem.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

MarkinMissouri said:


> Somebody correct me when I'm wrong but I think that you could expand that statement to be a comparision of a wolf hound and a miniature poodle. Aren't they all the same species just different sub species?


I don't believe that different dog breeds are considered different subspecies, but I could be mistaken. However, comparisons between what happens when directed by the hand of man and what happens in nature are somewhat problematic, I think.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> I find it curious that the only way that that argument is ever used by environmentalists is more: What is best for YOU individually is not what's best for us as a society or an ecosystem.


No, I believe that many environmentalists support positions that they are clearly aware are not in their own short term interests. It's just that environmentalists tend to have a longer time horizon. We tend to look at not the next generation or even the next, but ones after that and longer. Read "Thinking like a Mountain" Aldo Leopold, 1949, which I posted in its entirety in the previous wolf thread. It is directly on point as to how many environmentalists look at things. It's only about two pages long.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> Actually am more interested what field biologists have to say. Seems to me the issue of sub-species could be determined relatively easily by going into museums and university collections and doing some biometric measuring on the skins and skulls from the turn of the century and then comparing them with the measurements of recently harvested animals. One could also probably do some DNA testing to get family relationships. I bet that one would find out that the current wolves fall within the norms of the ones collected in the 1800's and early 1900's. There were thousands and thousands of animals killed during that time and I am sure that there are extensive records on those animals. I personally equate most of the anecdotal information with the folks who see Bigfoot or the Chupacabra.
> It should be pointed out that there are very few people alive who can remember the original wolves from the areas about which we are talking.


You're doing it again. The anecdotal information is the same as those who see Bigfoot - why do you have to do that?

You throw out a few sources that don't really even support your position, but rather confirm that there are 2 species of wolf, and then jump into pure speculation, but somehow your speculation is more correct than those who have seen these wolves and live out there with them, because you can put them down as equivalent to seeing bigfoot...


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

HPL said:


> comparisons between what happens when directed by the hand of man and what happens in nature are somewhat problematic, I think.


No offense but isn't that exactly what we are talking about?

Funny thing is, as pointed out above, I think we all pretty much agree


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> For the record, I didn't argue anything of the sort. I also don't see your reference on this thread.


You are absolutely correct. I confused your post with Happy Gilmore's. I apologize.


----------



## duckkiller (Jan 18, 2012)

There should absolutly be no debate on this at all. Common sense is all you need here. You can get the finest education that can be provided here in the states and still be dumb as a rock when it comes to common sense. This is not what you see is what you get. This is, here, take this and shut up. What has this country become?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Biologists are liars. In the area I hunt, locals have reported sightings for quite a few years. Biologists said, "no-way, not possible". I had a run in with just listening to a pack kill something large 4 years ago on Thanksgiving day while archery hunting for Elk on Lake Cle Elum. Funny how in Washington all of a sudden they started allowing us to wear sidearms while archery hunting.... 

Just after letting us wear sidearms, what do you know? There are wolves in Okanogan and Northeast Wa. 

Just after that, they finally admit there is a Teanaway pack. This is about 70-80 miles as the crow flies from suburban Seattle. That was the one I got to listen to killing something within no less than 200 yards of me in the dense forest. 

I can't wait until a few range over to our side and start eating every suburban Biologists pets... We have a huge issue with bear and cougar right now within 10 miles of Seattle due to folks saying hunting with dogs is cruel. Now, we've added another top predator to the mix when we can't even get a grasp on the ones we've got because of legislation by "biologists" and tree huggers. 


There will be people killed by cougars soon. "light" attacks and stand off encounters are now common in our area. One snatched a dog from a public rest area just a couple months ago on a State highway. The lady chased it and it dropped the dog. Caught on security camera..... predators lacking proper range and ample food supplies will start "surviving" and it will be costly.


----------



## bamaflinger (Jan 16, 2012)

There is a very simple solution:

Biologists have already determined the number of wolves needed to sustain a healthy and diverse wolf population in the area. Why can't we issue a certain amount of hunter tags, as well as nuisance tags for the farmers, every year, that will keep the numbers in check, but also allow them to prosper? This will add revenue to the local communities through hunting, which also leads to lodging and food, etc., and will help out the local ranchers. This also leaves plenty of wolves for the folks who like to watch/photograph them. Win-Win, right?

Also, I am against any subsidies to these farmers that lose livestock. I am also against spending more money on increasing the wolf population beyond the minimum needed for a healthy and diverse population. I am sick of our government, as well as "do-gooders", deciding that it is ok for my tax money to go to crap like this, when there is a very simple solution that is at least revenue neutral.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> No, I believe that many environmentalists support positions that they are clearly aware are not in their own short term interests. It's just that environmentalists tend to have a longer time horizon. We tend to look at not the next generation or even the next, but ones after that and longer. Read "Thinking like a Mountain" Aldo Leopold, 1949, which I posted in its entirety in the previous wolf thread. It is directly on point as to how many environmentalists look at things. It's only about two pages long.


I disagree.

Most environmentalists are completely misguided people who grew up on a diet of Bambi and Lion King. They have no experience in nature that goes beyond a suburban back yard. To these people, top predators like bears and wolves would be our friends, and would only hurt us because they're confused, probably because of something people did.

Others are biologists who study wildlife/nature. They don't get paid a ton of money for these jobs for the most part. They do it because they love it. They love being out in nature unspoiled by other people. It is in their short term best interests to make all these cool areas off limits to anyone but biologists who are there studying the fauna etc. They make exceptions for tourists because they want to make sure the grant money keeps coming in to allow them to live this way. 

So where is this not in their short term interests? They either don't go out into nature and prefer their nature on TV, or they don't want anyone else to be able to be out there.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Biologists are liars. In the area I hunt, locals have reported sightings for quite a few years. Biologists said, "no-way, not possible". I had a run in with just listening to a pack kill something large 4 years ago on Thanksgiving day while archery hunting for Elk on Lake Cle Elum. Funny how in Washington all of a sudden they started allowing us to wear sidearms while archery hunting....
> 
> Just after letting us wear sidearms, what do you know? There are wolves in Okanogan and Northeast Wa.
> 
> ...


Some biologists (like some doctors, some lawyers, some welders, some pipefitters, and most politicians) may indeed be liars. Most people that were educated in the sciences are skeptics. The scientific method gets stressed pretty heavily. Terms like "correlation doesn't mean causation" are very prominent. Results and observations must me repeatable. You can't imagine how many people I have met that claim to have seen jaguarundis, and yet, there hasn't been one found dead on the highway or caught by any of the folks studying wild cats in South Texas. If everybody I hear reporting a siting were actually seeing them, they would be as common as bobcats. I tend to discount reports of anything unusual by people I don't know well or know their reputation. Tell me you saw a cougar (in this area) and you better either have a photo, or have seen it in broad daylight in the open at less than 100yds. We have cougars in the area, but they are almost never seen. 

My whole position is: Biological diversity is a good and healthy thing. In keeping with that, I like the idea that there are wolves in the wild in the lower 48. It would be OK with me if the populations were restricted to federal lands. It is OK with me if they are hunted (even on federal lands) as long as viable populations are maintained. I have a BIG problem with folks who advocate the extirpation of any species, Elephants to cockroaches, Blue whales to snowy owls. That's it. No nefarious agenda.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I'm not talking about claims of seeing bigfoot or animals nobody can confirm are alive and thriving. 

I'm talking about a clear cover-up, sliding in animals under the radar then, annoucing their presense. 

Maybe because you live in a place where there are no wolves, this is the only way you can relate to someone actually having an encounter with one. Compare them to bigfoot and little goat killing mythical animals..

Wolves are not the mythical creatures to which you keep refering. Maybe they will be in Texas but, not to any State near the Canadian border.


----------



## David Poffinbarger (May 22, 2009)

I added another forum(Since this ones getting large and I didn't want the link getting lost in 7 pages of replies) dealing with a video about Wolves in Wisconsin. All videos are biased...but this one makes an honest attempt to cover all of the sides of the issues including Wolf/dog hybrids, Bear hunting conflicts, and livestock issues.

Link to the other forum...
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81436


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I'm not talking about claims of seeing bigfoot or animals nobody can confirm are alive and thriving.
> 
> I'm talking about a clear cover-up, sliding in animals under the radar then, annoucing their presense.
> 
> ...


Jaguarundis are not mythical either. They are real, just probably do not exist north or the Rio Grande these days. As to your specific situation, I can't really speak, but your bold statement that (all) biologists are liars is clearly false and you are tarring a group of mostly honest, dedicated professionals with a rather broad brush. We wouldn't have sustainable, huntable populations of wild animals without modern game management practices developed, implemented, and improved on by these professionals. Without their efforts we would be relegated to tower shoots and clay pigeons.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Most environmentalists are completely misguided people who grew up on a diet of Bambi and Lion King. They have no experience in nature that goes beyond a suburban back yard. To these people, top predators like bears and wolves would be our friends, and would only hurt us because they're confused, probably because of something people did.
> 
> ...


All I can say is you are simply wrong. Many of the environmentalists I know are avid hunters who recognize that the preservation of the natural world is critical to their sport. Many also realize that man's continued existence is dependent on a healthy environment. You have been hanging around with the wrong crowd. I would agree that it is hard to determine what are noble and unselfish motives as opposed to venal and selfish ones, but I would say that those with the largest financial interest are to be more suspect than those for whom the benefits are more intangible. Don't think we will come to an agreement here and I am much too slow a typist to flesh this out fully, so I think I'll leave that thought as it stands. The paragraph below speaks to the timeline many naturalists are trained to look at.

Thinking Like a Mountain; Aldo Leopold 1949

A deep chesty bawl echoes from rimrock to rimrock, rolls down the mountain, and fades into the far blackness of the night. It is an outburst of wild defiant sorrow, and of contempt for all the adversities of the world. 
Every living thing (and perhaps many a dead one as well) pays heed to that call. To the deer it is a reminder of the way of all flesh, to the pine a forecast of midnight scuffles and of blood upon the snow, to the coyote a promise of gleanings to come, to the cowman a threat of red ink at the bank, to the hunter a challenge of fang against bullet. Yet behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. *Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf.*


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

But Aldo was a Republican


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Classic case of man fooling with mother nature. "It's not nice to fool with mother nature." ;-)


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Dman said:


> Classic case of man fooling with mother nature. "It's not nice to fool with mother nature." ;-)


 
something like this? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eotb8Dc6CBA&feature=related


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Jerry Beil said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Most environmentalists are completely misguided people who grew up on a diet of Bambi and Lion King. They have no experience in nature that goes beyond a suburban back yard. *I see. Are these are the same people who worked to end open dumping and have helped to return the upper Mississippi to a top fishery? And the same group workiing to rid western streams of arsenic and sulpher from mining thus restoring them to a state that can support trout. And the same group who recognized that DDT was causing Eagle eggs to be too thin so allow hatching. And the same bunch that worked to protect our fragile wetlands and fens from being draintiled to death?* * I could go on, but would be wasting my time.*To these people, top predators like bears and wolves would be our friends, and would only hurt us because they're confused, probably because of something people did. *Probably not our friends, but over 80% of all attacts by large animals are the result of a human doing something REALLY stupid*.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> All I can say is you are simply wrong. Many of the environmentalists I know are avid hunters who recognize that the preservation of the natural world is critical to their sport. Many also realize that man's continued existence is dependent on a healthy environment. You have been hanging around with the wrong crowd. I would agree that it is hard to determine what are noble and unselfish motives as opposed to venal and selfish ones, but I would say that those with the largest financial interest are to be more suspect than those for whom the benefits are more intangible. Don't think we will come to an agreement here and I am much too slow a typist to flesh this out fully, so I think I'll leave that thought as it stands. The paragraph below speaks to the timeline many naturalists are trained to look at.
> 
> Thinking Like a Mountain; Aldo Leopold 1949
> 
> ...


I like the Leopold passage. I don't see that it has to do with the discussion. Somehow this quote proves that environmentalists think on a different timeline? You do realize that most "environmentalists" have no formal training in environmentalism whatsoever beyond the liberal indoctrination they get in our schools and on TV.

Those who are champions of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone etc are primarily not those who are impacted by it. Those folks have been living there for generations in many cases, and now you want to come in and tell them how they should be doing things. They're the same big city folks who have virtually closed the beaches to driving on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Somehow it's noble for some person living in a big city in the northeast to destroy someone else's way of life.

Environmentalists are just as biased as those they oppose. The danger is they see themselves as somehow above that and as objective, when in fact they are not.


----------



## duckkiller (Jan 18, 2012)

Too many animated movies depicting wild animals that seem so cuddly that have diluted the common sense of some folks with loud voices. To think we are better off with these preditors in our back yards is just crazy. It amazes me how many folks actually buy this BS.


----------



## obx4me (Jan 29, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> They're the same big city folks who have virtually closed the beaches to driving on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Somehow it's noble for some person living in a big city in the northeast to destroy someone else's way of life.
> 
> Environmentalists are just as biased as those they oppose. The danger is they see themselves as somehow above that and as objective, when in fact they are not.


the coorelation to Cape Hatteras is exactly what went through my mind at first. 

:snipersmile: DOW :evilbat:

It's not about the wolf or the piping plover. Never was about the plover.


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

duckkiller said:


> Too many animated movies depicting wild animals that seem so cuddly that have diluted the common sense of some folks with loud voices. To think we are better off with these preditors in our back yards is just crazy. It amazes me how many folks actually buy this BS.


Thumbs up to that!!!

BHB


----------



## starjack (Apr 30, 2009)

Sharon Potter said:


> I'm willing to wager that wolf numbers in WI are grossly underestimated. I'd guess we have at least double the number the DNR claims, if not more. That's the real problem...accurate numbers. It's not like we can mail them a census form..


Just like there are no mt lions or couger DNR Might want to put aban on trailcam


----------



## David Poffinbarger (May 22, 2009)

I agree the WiDNR not admitting to cougars seems baffling...until I talked to one of their biologists at a conference. 

His answer was that the minute the DNR studies and determines that there is a breeding population of cougars in the state then then need to create a "Management Plan" and all that that involves...including protection, habitat preservation, etc...

Before you get mad at the DNR and pressure them to do an "Official" study think about the implications...it creates a wolf situation including setting aside and managing separate habitat, changing the uses allowed on some public lands to protect the species, etc...you just might get what you ask for.

For the time being I think we're better off with the DNR's stance of ignoring the issue(until the population gets to a level where if it was recognized it could be delisted) and dealing with depredation issues as they occur. My 2 cents...


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> I like the Leopold passage. I don't see that it has to do with the discussion. Somehow this quote proves that environmentalists think on a different timeline? You do realize that most "environmentalists" have no formal training in environmentalism whatsoever beyond the liberal indoctrination they get in our schools and on TV.
> 
> Those who are champions of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone etc are primarily not those who are impacted by it. Those folks have been living there for generations in many cases, and now you want to come in and tell them how they should be doing things. They're the same big city folks who have virtually closed the beaches to driving on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Somehow it's noble for some person living in a big city in the northeast to destroy someone else's way of life.
> 
> Environmentalists are just as biased as those they oppose. The danger is they see themselves as somehow above that and as objective, when in fact they are not.


I'll address the quote first: the point of the essay (and the entire essay is posted in the "First Wolf in California " thread around page 9 or 10 I think) is that individual men are too short lived to really see natural processes, so, yes it is saying that man in general tends to view things in too small a time window. 

And yes, the environmental movement is like pretty much every movement, that is to say mostly comprised of followers who lack the education and even the mental ability to fully understand whatever cause is being championed whether environmentalism, freedom of speech, adherence to the intention of the founding fathers, economic freedom, the Republican/Democrat/Libertarian platform, etc. so I really don't see your point there. The environmental movement is also comprised of lots of professionals who have spent lifetimes in attempting to understand the inter-relatonships of various organisms in nature and what effect they have on us and what effect we have on them. 
Again you are tarring with a rather broad brush,


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

I think in some ways we are lumping all environmentalists into one stereotype. Most environmentalists don't even know they are because they are just trying to be good stewards of the land and it's resources. I am an environmentalist and so are you because we do things to protect these resources... Regardless of the motivation... Environmentalists play a very important role. Please don't belittle them. 

Now, having said that, I think that any environmentalist who believes that man does not have a place in the eco-system, or isn't more important than a slug, has been smoking too much flora and is in reality a radical. A much more dangerous beast than any wolf.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

I get it HPL. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand the situation, or they're ignorant. It's no great revelation that man views things in a relatively short time window. That doesn't mean that you're right, or that environmentalists don't view things in the same short time window.

It's not that I'm tarring with a rather broad brush, just pointing out that most people considered environmentalists are not educated in that, and have no idea other than what they see on TV.

It annoys the crud out of me that extreme environmentalists have co-opted the whole movement. Environmentalism should not be a liberal/conservative kind of issue. There isn't any chance for conservation or environmentalism to succeed unless it fits into the economics of the involved human civilization. You can say all you want that environmentalist biologists are responsible for the improvement in game species populations etc, but so are the sportsman who basically funded the entire conservation movement, AND who create a financial value for game animals. The majority of those who would consider themselves "environmentalists" played no part in it.

You can talk about what a great thing banning DDT was in bringing back Bald Eagles, but there has been a huge human cost. Malaria was preventable with DDT. Without, it's the biggest killer of human beings in the world. The sad thing is, that for many who consider themselves environmentalists, they'd take that trade every time. Why? Because it doesn't impact them.

Personally on the wolf question, I think there's probably a place for them, and I think that most would agree. At the same time, that's not everywhere, and a managed population is really not the true goal many of those championing re-introduction etc. Once the population is established, their aim changes to limit land uses around them etc and to them justify the imposition of further restrictions on other people.

I like the idea of wolves in the lower 48, but I think those that are directly affected ought to have a lot more say about it than I do. I like the idea, but I don't think we NEED wolves in most of the lower 48.


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

duckkiller said:


> Too many animated movies depicting wild animals that seem so cuddly that have diluted the common sense of some folks with loud voices. To think we are better off with these preditors in our back yards is just crazy. It amazes me how many folks actually buy this BS.


Yep, too many people who never listened to their grandparents and great grandparents who settled this land. We don't have lots of elk and buffalo 
all over the USA for food for the wolves now either. This is a pretty pipe dream for most people. Coyotes are bad enough and they are over-running the whole country. Controlling the wolves is going to be a big time problem.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Biologists are liars. In the area I hunt, locals have reported sightings for quite a few years. Biologists said, "no-way, not possible". I had a run in with just listening to a pack kill something large 4 years ago on Thanksgiving day while archery hunting for Elk on Lake Cle Elum. Funny how in Washington all of a sudden they started allowing us to wear sidearms while archery hunting....
> 
> Just after letting us wear sidearms, what do you know? There are wolves in Okanogan and Northeast Wa.
> 
> ...


So what is your solution, Paul? That we kill all the wolves, coyotes and cougars so that there is no predator that can come into our back yards are kill the neighbors poodle?



duckkiller said:


> Too many animated movies depicting wild animals that seem so cuddly that have diluted the common sense of some folks with loud voices. To think we are better off with these preditors in our back yards is just crazy. It amazes me how many folks actually buy this BS.


To think we are better off eliminating all predators, which seems to be the argument some are making, is even crazier. 


.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> So what is your solution, Paul? That we kill all the wolves, coyotes and cougars so that there is no predator that can come into our back yards are kill the neighbors poodle?


The NW has millions of acres where no man can go or has great difficulty getting there,,,let alone to dwell. No roads no man This is the place to regulate the wolf. Any where else they should be treated like the cyote. 
Wolf rugs are beautiful. 


Pete


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

How about with start with eliminating the predators who weren't here originally, the wolves they released. I read in a report from id f&g that there we're 0 wolf kills on elk in the zone I normally hunt, after about an hour of walking that was obviously wrong, and after a few weeks of scouting it was clear to me that the wolves must be eating noxious weeds and rattle snakes.... and their just big furry cute cuddly wild animals that deserve to stay in their new (never before lived in) home.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I've been subject to lies of biologists. These lies surfaced while I was stuck in a spot with a knocked arrow in my hand in the middle of a vine maple tangle and not a tree to climb within a reasonable distance while listening to a pack of wolves kill a large animal within 200 yards. 

When you have the opportunity to be lied to, be out hunting in the woods and experience what I listened to and had to "skirt" around the sounds of an animal being killed and it takes you over 40 minutes before you get to a safe location...... Then tell me all is good. 

I told my group of archery friends the story as soon as I got back to cell range. They all thought I was crazy. A few years later, here is the news story... 

This is complete BS because the High Country Horseman Society has been reporting wolves for years and the Biologists kept denying it until, they couldn't deny it any longer. This is why we as archers are now allowed to pack pistols....because of the danger presented by wolves while hunting elk... 

Just the fact is that field biologists won't listen to people in the field(hunters and horsemen) and only report what fits into their own political agenda. 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015516994_wolves06m.html

My best friends Father in Law grew up in Ronald, Wa. Has been a high country horseman for over 55 years. He told me he packed out a wolf carcass for a UW biologist in 1973. The wolves have been in and out of our areas. They cannot survive on their own. This is proven. The biologists are pushing to re-introduce a species which has ranged into the area and not been able to sustain its' own population without influence of humans. 

People are putting and promoting these packs which have been prevalent and placed on and off for many year. 

Another "field story" is from one of my best friends' grandfather. His family was one of three first homesteaders in Weiser, Id. His grandfather now ranches cattle north of Weiser a hundred miles or so. He's had wolves on his ranch for over 30 years on and off. Every one has been killed and buried. He was smart enough to know that involving biologists and the Federal Government would have made his property and live a miserable hell. He maintains he's shot no less than 15 wolves prior to 1990.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Many years ago I was traveling through Norther Idaho. at that time there were signs here and there along the road asking people to report wolverine sightings. Well low and behold one had lumbered across the road in front of me.
I was excited to call the IFG to report it.
When I did they told me it must of been something else,,there are no wolverines in that part of the state. Okee Do Kee.


----------



## duckkiller (Jan 18, 2012)

Rick C, people like you that take a quote that says nothing of what you interpret it to say and screw it all up. I never said eliminate. There are no places where I live for wolves that would be insane. No matter where they are the numbers have to be kept under control. It would be crime and is, cause apparently it is out of control out west. I think it is also BS putting these animals where the locals don't want them. Somethings up with this and it isn't right. There are people pushing agendas that shouldn't have the authority to procreate let alone have a say on what's going on in nature.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Jerry Beil said:


> You can talk about what a great thing banning DDT was in bringing back Bald Eagles, *but there has been a huge human cost. Malaria was preventable with DDT. Without, it's the biggest killer of human beings in the world. *The sad thing is, that for many who consider themselves environmentalists, they'd take that trade every time. Why? Because it doesn't impact them.


You have got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The # cause of death worldwide is cardiovascular disease accounting for 29.34% of all deaths.
Infectious and parasitic diseases account for 23.04% of all deaths, with malaria accounting for 2.23% of those. In this group:
Respriatory inffections 6.95%
Lower respiratory tract infection 6.81%
HIV/Aids 4.87%
Diarehea diseases 3.5% 
TB 2.75%
Malaria 2.23%
Childhood diseases 1.97%
Measles 1.07%
and the balance less than 1% each
0, thats ZERO deaths from malaria in developed countries.

(all data from 2002, most current I could find)

Next time you might want to check the facts, before making such a bold statement of fact. Opinions are one thing. Making up facts something else. 

Can't deny the data regards


----------



## ejb3810 (Jan 11, 2012)

Those in favor of the gray wolf existing in the west at all are using altruistic pie in the sky logic.
The animal has provided no positive benefit that can be substantiated. If you feel a need to champion some cause, then I suggest the reintroduction of the Passenger Pigeon or some other worthwhile endeavor.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I've been subject to lies of biologists. These lies surfaced while I was stuck in a spot with a knocked arrow in my hand in the middle of a vine maple tangle and not a tree to climb within a reasonable distance while listening to a pack of wolves kill a large animal within 200 yards.
> 
> When you have the opportunity to be lied to, be out hunting in the woods and experience what I listened to and had to "skirt" around the sounds of an animal being killed and it takes you over 40 minutes before you get to a safe location...... Then tell me all is good.
> 
> ...


Don't some bow hunters hunt in Grizzly country? Isn't knowing that you are out in the woods with creatures that might be able to take you down and not sitting safely in your armchair at home part of being an outdoorsman? Isn't this a big part of being a bow hunter trying to capture the mystique of the ancient hunter's struggle against his quarry? Seems to me that the presence of wolves would just enhance that experience. Forget the pistol, just carry a nice, sharp Bowie and do it like your forefathers did it.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

achiro said:


> 1. Bergmann's Rule is applicable to wolves
> 2. There are many more than 2 subspecies of wolves. I have no idea what the original subspecies in that area was nor do I know which was reintroduced. But the wolves in Manitoba are different than the ones in Michigan.
> All wolves and dogs are classified as Canis Lupis, it is the word that follows that determines the subspecies. ie Canis Lupis Familiaris would be your labrador retirever(and other domestic dogs).


Funny how this topic got dropped completly and suddenly switched to the whole environmentalists argument. Is the wolf introduced the same subspecies or not?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL, I'm kind of surprised you didn't mention bigfoot.. 

When you go hunting you prepare for the conditions and area you are hunting. If you are told there are no particular animals which pose a danger to you then, you don't worry about it. 

When you go hunting pheasants with snow on the ground, do you wear your snake chaps? Or, do you carry pepper spray for bigfoot?


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

achiro said:


> Funny how this topic got dropped completly and suddenly switched to the whole environmentalists argument. Is the wolf introduced the same subspecies or not?


That is a good question and I think an even better one is "If not, does the original subspecies still exist and if not what is the closest analogue?"


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

As I posted earlier in the thread the reintroduced wolves ARE the same species. 



> *Aren’t the wolves that were re-introduced in other places non-native or different from earlier wolves?*
> 
> *No*. The belief that the wolves reintroduced in the mid-1990s to Idaho and Yellowstone National Park from west-central Alberta and east-central British Columbia differed (being larger and more aggressive) from the wolves that originally occurred in the northern Rocky Mountain states is erroneous for several reasons.
> 
> ...


http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#7


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Seems Like this is more of a Potus place, Issue, but it is adding some fire to the RTF main board, so keep at it


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> As I posted earlier in the thread the reintroduced wolves ARE the same species.
> 
> 
> 
> http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/faq.html#7


 
So are show labs and field trial labs.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

Golddogs said:


> You have got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The # cause of death worldwide is cardiovascular disease accounting for 29.34% of all deaths.
> Infectious and parasitic diseases account for 23.04% of all deaths, with malaria accounting for 2.23% of those. In this group:
> ...


Sorry I had that wrong - It is one of the biggest killers in sub-Saharan Africa where it could be prevented with DDT. It doesn't change the point of my illustration. 

I realize you're perfect, so I'll strive to be more like you.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> So are show labs and field trial labs.


Well OK, maybe the same species but definitely not the same breed.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

The fact that they are the same species is meaningless in the context of this discussion. 

Subspecies is what matters here, and that may not be something that is known 100%. If not the same, then very closely related.


----------



## starjack (Apr 30, 2009)

mossduck said:


> I agree the WiDNR not admitting to cougars seems baffling...until I talked to one of their biologists at a conference.
> 
> His answer was that the minute the DNR studies and determines that there is a breeding population of cougars in the state then then need to create a "Management Plan" and all that that involves...including protection, habitat preservation, etc...
> 
> ...


 Or till someone gets killed


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

mossduck said:


> I agree the *WiDNR not admitting to cougars *seems baffling...until I talked to one of their biologists at a conference.
> 
> His answer was that the minute the DNR studies and determines that there is a breeding population of cougars in the state then then need to create a "Management Plan" and all that that involves...including protection, habitat preservation, etc...
> 
> ...


The biggest issue with that is the effect that stand has on the WDNR's credibility which leads to distrust.


BTW--There is a pretty interesting article in Deer & Deer Hunting magazine this month about wolves and coyotes co-existing.


*RK*


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Howard N said:


> Well OK, maybe the same species but definitely not the same breed.


Actually, that article claims that they ARE the same subspecies _C. lupus occidentalis_, but another post would suggest otherwise, just with no citations to back it up.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> The fact that they are the same species is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
> 
> Subspecies is what matters here, and that may not be something that is known 100%. If not the same, then very closely related.


Goldensails says explicitly that they are the same subspecies: _C. lupus occendentalis_ but another post references an article that says not. Seems to need some more digging.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

HPL said:


> Actually, that article claims that they ARE the same subspecies _C. lupus occidentalis_, but another post would suggest otherwise, just with no citations to back it up.


Nope, I know very little about wolves. They're big with big feet (they seem flopfooted when they're moving) and that's about it.

I was talking about the Canis lupus familiaris. Specifically the breeds of Labrador Retriever Fieldus, and Labrador Retriever Showus. 

Other than that, I think it's kind of funny that an Alabama resident is telling a Washington resident how they should manage their wolves or even whether or not they have wolves in Washington.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Jerry Beil said:


> Sorry I had that wrong - It is one of the biggest killers in sub-Saharan Africa where it could be prevented with DDT. It doesn't change the point of my illustration. *Sure it does. It is not one of the biggest killers. Refer to the #'s posted previously, it is far down the list. Also, it is amost impossible to spray an area as large as the sub-sahara with any pesticide and do any real good. Been tried. Didn't work. A better,more reliable method of prevention is inoculation, much like they are doing to slow the spread of HIV/aids related deaths.*
> 
> I realize you're perfect, *Therre ya go again making up facts. No one is perfect. Some of us just try to minimize our mistakes* so I'll strive to be more like you.* Ok, I would take that as a compliment *


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

It doesn't change the point - that environmentalists seem to be very happy to make environmental decisions that don't impact them regardless of negative consequences for others.

The wolf thing is a perfect example, so is the Cape Hatteras beach driving issue, and the DDT example. You're all very happy to say it's a great thing that was done, and pretty much it's too bad some people had to suffer for it - as long as it's not you. Again, not ALL environmentalists, but most.

For the record, I'm not claiming that DDT is even a good solution, or that banning it was wrong. Just as another example of environmentalists putting animals before people, or at least animals before other people.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

HPL said:


> Goldensails says explicitly that they are the same subspecies: _C. lupus occendentalis_ but another post references an article that says not. Seems to need some more digging.


THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SUBSPECIES! 
originally it was canis lupus irremotus, now they are canis lupus occidentalis and way larger, more aggressive. Call the american society of mammologist. I remember it was a big controversy when they brought them.

Stop saying there the same, their not even close.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Min pins and st.bernards are the same sub species

The original wolves are extinct.

They could have released malamutes and it would have been closer to the original species.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> It doesn't change the point - that environmentalists seem to be very happy to make environmental decisions that don't impact them regardless of negative consequences for others.
> 
> The wolf thing is a perfect example, so is the Cape Hatteras beach driving issue, and the DDT example. You're all very happy to say it's a great thing that was done, and pretty much it's too bad some people had to suffer for it - as long as it's not you. Again, not ALL environmentalists, but most.
> 
> For the record, I'm not claiming that DDT is even a good solution, or that banning it was wrong. Just as another example of environmentalists putting animals before people, or at least animals before other people.


But what you are saying is that no one living in the areas where wolves have been introduced is in favor of that re-introduction. You are saying that ALL ranchers, outfitters, etc. in those areas oppose the re-introduction. You will need to back that up.

I am sure that if you ask the whalers they, oppose the ban on whaling, but I think most of us think it is a good thing. 
It is frequently not a good idea to make environmental decisions based on the opinions of the people who have the most to gain from raping nature and the most to lose if the balance is restored.

HPL


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

HPL said:


> But what you are saying is that no one living in the areas where wolves have been introduced is in favor of that re-introduction. You are saying that ALL ranchers, outfitters, etc. in those areas oppose the re-introduction. You will need to back that up.
> 
> HPL


Or you could find any rancher or outfitter in the area that does support it. I bet that would be pretty tough.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

A few more interesting articles on the subspecies that I found.



> Historically, the wolf populations originally native to Yellowstone were classed under the subspecies C. l. irremotus. When the issue of what subspecies to use for the introduction was raised, park service representatives stated that *the taxonomy of grey wolves had been revised numerous times, and that C. l. irremotus was not a distinct subspecies, but a geographical variant*. Three publications were made on the appropriateness of using a founding population of Canadian wolves: *Brewster and Fritz supported the motion, while Nowak determined that the original Yellowstone wolves were more similar to C. l. nubilus, a subspecies already present in Minnesota*, and that the Canadian animals proposed by Brewster and Fritz were of the subspecies C. l. occidentalis, a significantly larger animal. The rationale behind Brewster and Fritz's favour was that wolves show little genetic diversity, and that the original population was extinct anyway. This was contradicted by Nowak, who contested that *Minnesotan wolves were much more similar in size and shape to the original population than the proposed Canadian wolves, though he conceded that C. l. occidentalis was probably already migrating southward even before human intervention*. The final use of Canadian wolves for the reintroduction was not without criticism: the American Society of Mammalogists criticised the project's lack of deference to the principle of Bergmann's rule, pointing out that the wolves used for the introduction were 30% larger than the original park wolves, and were adapted to much colder climates. Finally, the society questioned the legality under the ESA of “recovering” a taxon of wolf by expanding the historic range of a less similar type, when more closely related founder stock still remained available.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowstone

And parts of another article...



> The last couple of decades have seen some biologists begin to scale back on the number of subspecies they recognize.
> 
> Prior to the official adoption of the 24 subspecies, Dr. L. David Mech observed that so many subspecies were unnecessary, and that many lacked the necessary differentiators to earn them a standalone subspecies designation.....
> 
> ...


http://howlcolorado.org/2010/04/22/detangling-the-subspecies-controversy/

Even if the were not EXACTLY the same, the evidence to me is that they are so genetically and phenotypically similar, as well as interbreeding with each other that in the larger scheme of things this is one of those wolf issues that really doesn't matter. JMO. What I think is more important is sound management of the population by the state and I am glad that Idaho is able to do that now.


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I'm not talking about claims of seeing bigfoot or animals nobody can confirm are alive and thriving.
> 
> I'm talking about a clear cover-up, sliding in animals under the radar then, annoucing their presense.
> 
> ...


Yep. Bears are suddenly being seen in our area where no one has seen a bear since ( probably ) 1850 or earlier. Rumors float that some black bears were brought in and turned loose about 8 miles from us. Of course officially that is not happening.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

Goldensail, that's pretty interesting reading. Although I'm not sure what to make of it.

I don't know about hunting wolves, but if it's like hunting for deer, then the fact that it's a significant sample 20% doesn't mean it necessarily is a representative sample for the whole population. If you look at the whitetail harvest, it's generally the younger deer that are taken, which means they're the smaller ones.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> But what you are saying is that no one living in the areas where wolves have been introduced is in favor of that re-introduction. You are saying that ALL ranchers, outfitters, etc. in those areas oppose the re-introduction. You will need to back that up.
> 
> I am sure that if you ask the whalers they, oppose the ban on whaling, but I think most of us think it is a good thing.
> It is frequently not a good idea to make environmental decisions based on the opinions of the people who have the most to gain from raping nature and the most to lose if the balance is restored.
> ...


You keep putting words in my mouth and painting all those who oppose your version of environmentalist as a rapist etc. It doesn't really surprise me that you would do that, but it's telling that you resort to those kind of tactics in supporting your position. I never said ALL of the people who live there are against wolves, I said if it was up to the people who live there and are impacted by it, they would probably not have done it. But it gets strong support from the same Bambi raised crowd living in the big cities that gets drummed up by documentaries by "honest" biologists that lump poachers into the same group as hunters and paint those who oppose their "scientifically correct" opinions as greedy rapists of nature.

As for whaling, you do realize it is not illegal everywhere for all species right? Why should it be banned? Because people really like whales? Because they're our friends? If there are populations that can support a managed harvest, should it still be banned?


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

charly_t said:


> Bears are suddenly being seen in our area where no one has seen a bear since ( probably ) 1850 or earlier. Rumors float that some black bears were brought in and turned loose about 8 miles from us. Of course officially that is not happening.


I am a conspiracy theorist at heart but I have given a lot of thought to this under the radar approach. In Missouri it's been the black bear and the mountain lion. I just can't see them pulling it off without someone figuring it out and blowing the whistle OR taking credit. Any animals that were released would need to be trapped, quarantined, transported, given medical check ups, money changes hands, etc. Too many places for the secret to get out. I would love to believe it but I just can't.

A few years back when I worked with the Department of Conservation there was a report of a black bear on our conservation area. The guys went where the "bear" was seen crossing the road. No scat, no prints. Just an unverified sighting. Two weeks later we are doing some work and run across a big old Black Wild Hog in roughly the same neck of the woods as our bear sighting. Obviously we will never know whether there was a bear in them woods, but my boss believes that it was a hog that guy saw because it is more likely. He wasn't being sneaky or dishonest. He was just calling it like he saw it.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

black bears are just a nuisance. Other than tip garbage cans they are harmless. They do kill a lot of trees coming out of hibernation every year. Tree farms in our area loose a lot of timber due to their need to eat something until some berries start showing up early summer. 

This is what a lot of trees look like every year on a tree farm next to my buddies house in North Bend, Wa

Gonna give poor old Bora a heartattack... 










My buddies wife took this picture from her kitchen year before. Tried for weeks to find this guy..


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

Not really trying to equate black bears to wolves or anything like that. Just trying to point out that a lot of "lying" that biologists do is to not believe anything that they haven't seen or touched. Kind of like when you go to the doc and say "I have a sinus infection." The Doc gives you that knowing look and says "I'll be the judge of that." Although I am sure there are those biologists who have an agenda to put forward or a reputation to make. 

Talking about preparing for the wildlife that you expect to encounter... Last two seasons I have spent the night sleeping under a tree so as to get a jump on that big ole Tom Turkey. Even with the reports of black bear I wasn't too concerned. Mountain Lion got shot last year about 12 miles from the house... Probably won't be making it a third sleep out


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

MarkinMissouri said:


> I am a conspiracy theorist at heart but I have given a lot of thought to this under the radar approach. In Missouri it's been the black bear and the mountain lion. I just can't see them pulling it off without someone figuring it out and blowing the whistle OR taking credit. Any animals that were released would need to be trapped, quarantined, transported, given medical check ups, money changes hands, etc. Too many places for the secret to get out. I would love to believe it but I just can't.
> 
> A few years back when I worked with the Department of Conservation there was a report of a black bear on our conservation area. The guys went where the "bear" was seen crossing the road. No scat, no prints. Just an unverified sighting. Two weeks later we are doing some work and run across a big old Black Wild Hog in roughly the same neck of the woods as our bear sighting. Obviously we will never know whether there was a bear in them woods, but my boss believes that it was a hog that guy saw because it is more likely. He wasn't being sneaky or dishonest. He was just calling it like he saw it.


Two things make me think that there are indeed bears in our area now. Youngest son who has hunted this area for years saw feces that he could not identfy over a year ago in a public hunting area just north of the area where it was reported that the bears were released. A neighbor saw one while working on a oil lease a few miles away. Of course his sigthing was at a little distance and it was a none moving animal. He told us that he saw this fire blackened 
large stump along the lease road. He said he thought at the time that it looked just like a black bear sitting there. Not driving that road often he had never noticed it before he said. When he drove back down the road on his return it was gone. We do have wild ( ? ) hogs in this area but when the man got to talking to other people he was told about the bear release near here. 
And either the same bear or another one was seen about 15 miles south east of us. Since none of these people have had contact with each other the stories seem to point to the rumor of the release having some merit.


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

FinnLandR said:


> For citations and references, go to Trout Unlimited's website.


That is exactly my point. I definitely believe that there have been some stupid decisions made in the name of preservation (Missouri's reintroduction of the Prairie Chicken for one). I definitely, though, believe the immortal words of Ron White "I had the right to remain silent...but I didn't have the ability" If someone is sneaking wolves, bears, mountain lions, etc into our back yards, sooner or later someone will be able to prove it.

FinnLandR, did they really introduce lake trout on the QT? I searched the website but couldn't find a reference. That would make a monumental mistake, a criminal one in my opinion!


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

charly_t said:


> Two things make me think that there are indeed bears in our area now. Youngest son who has hunted this area for years saw feces that he could not identfy over a year ago in a public hunting area just north of the area where it was reported that the bears were released. A neighbor saw one while working on a oil lease a few miles away. Of course his sigthing was at a little distance and it was a none moving animal. He told us that he saw this fire blackened
> large stump along the lease road. He said he thought at the time that it looked just like a black bear sitting there. Not driving that road often he had never noticed it before he said. When he drove back down the road on his return it was gone. We do have wild ( ? ) hogs in this area but when the man got to talking to other people he was told about the bear release near here.
> And either the same bear or another one was seen about 15 miles south east of us. Since none of these people have had contact with each other the stories seem to point to the rumor of the release having some merit.


I believe that there are black bear in your neck of the woods, just as there are in Missouri now. It's just that I am skeptical that a release of said bears could be kept in the realm of gossip instead of proveable fact.


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

MarkinMissouri said:


> I believe that there are black bear in your neck of the woods, just as there are in Missouri now. It's just that I am skeptical that a release of said bears could be kept in the realm of gossip instead of proveable fact.



Well, we take a local newspaper and it never mentiond ( that I read anyway ) that at least one game ranger was spending a whole day shooting wild hogs a while back. I can't prove that but a cousin in his 80s happened to see the guy and visit with him the day after the shooting took place. Kind of hard to hide a bunch of dead hogs I would think. But no one around here has ever mentioned this except that cousin. Oh, and the cousin who told me about this doesn't believe that we have cougars in our area because he has never seen one himself and has hunted all his life in this area. Some people just have to see things to believe them. My son who does the hunting saw a cougar about 22 years ago. I questioned him very well about it and I believe he knows what he saw. Doc we used to see told me about cougars being seen in Osage country by himself and other people but we aren't supposed to have a resident population of cougars here. Local paper finally warned people about some coyotes, bobcats and perhaps other wild animals who are taking tame animals in or near the town of Bartlesville. As to being able to prove that the fish and game people move stuff I can't. Since people move cattle at night but it is against the law to do so I can't see why fish and game people can't do the same without us knowing they are moving animals. Lots of places to unload things without people knowing about it.


----------



## Im_with_Brandy (Apr 22, 2010)

Thanks for posting the video. It was very interesting. I agree with most of it but like a few others have said it is a biased point a view. Not saying that mistakes have not been made in wolf management. 
I do find argument with a comment one gentleman made in the video. He compared man’s evolutional advantages in hunting to that of a wolf or coyote. He fails to mention unlike other predators man hunts for sport more than for necessity. With the tools we have and with the level of population we have we humans could hunt every last animal off the face off the earth if we did not control our hunting through regulation. So the key is not to wipe out all wolves but to manage the population. I have no problem with the reintroduction of wolves to yellow stone as long as the population level is controlled.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> black bears are just a nuisance. Other than tip garbage cans they are harmless.


Paul, black bears in Alaska kill _and eat_ someone every few years.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Howard N said:


> Paul, black bears in Alaska kill _and eat_ someone every few years.


 
Washington's first documented black bear attack occured last year at Lake Chelan, a resort lake destination in north-central, Wa to a Bellevue resident.. I think a councilman or something like that. (edit) here is the article.. http://www.king5.com/news/local/Bel...ear-attack-as-horrendous-fight-104419118.html

He was walking his dog down the road and it got between the sow and her cubs if I recall correctly. The bear charged the dog and he got in the sightline of the charging sow. 

Grizzley encounters of settlers probably were not well documented of course. Our first confirmed griz was about two years ago after a rancher had been losing sheep. The area is about another 70miles north of Lake Chelan. Hair was found on a fence where he'd scared it off a carcass. Biologists confirmed via DNA it was a griz. This year the first photograph of a griz in Wa. in over 100 years was taken by a deer hunter on a special permit high alpine mule deer hunt near the Canadian border. 

They'll come back on their own if food source is available and range is acceptable for life. No need to re-introduce. A top echelon predator making its' way back on it's own accord is acceptable to me. 

Putting animals in the middle of locked in wildernesses which are surrounded by suburbia is not.


----------



## minnducker (Jan 29, 2010)

Backing up to an earlier point discussed in this thread. The Pittman-Robertson act specifically targets funds to create and improve hunting opportunities. In 1970, it was ammended and a tax on handguns and archery equipment and accessories was added, and the ammendement specified that half of these new funds must be used for hunter training and safety education. Unless the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone is to provide wolf hunting opportunities, the USFW service violated the rules governing how the PR funds are to be used. I don't care if HPL doesn't mind that his share of the PR funds went for wolf reintroduction, the fact is that's not what the PR act specified, and I do care. I wish someone in Washington was accountable for this and all the other misuses of public funds.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

minnducker said:


> I wish someone in Washington was accountable for this and all the other misuses of public funds.


While I do agree with you, good luck making it happen. This country is a mess at the present time and unfortunately, I don't see it changing anytime soon.


----------



## obx4me (Jan 29, 2011)

FinnLandR said:


> I've tried watching the video several times, but it says the free viewing has expired.


You could try clearing cache and/or clear cookies in your browser (warning, this clears saved passwords for other sites from your browser cache...)?

I was able to watch the video with no problem. Others I know watched it. But 1 other person I know had the same issue with "Free viewing is over". i dunno.

The video is *awesome*, it's about much more than just the wolf, just like the piping plover at Hatteras!


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

minnducker said:


> Backing up to an earlier point discussed in this thread. The Pittman-Robertson act specifically targets funds to create and improve hunting opportunities. In 1970, it was ammended and a tax on handguns and archery equipment and accessories was added, and the ammendement specified that half of these new funds must be used for hunter training and safety education. Unless the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone is to provide wolf hunting opportunities, the USFW service violated the rules governing how the PR funds are to be used. I don't care if HPL doesn't mind that his share of the PR funds went for wolf reintroduction, the fact is that's not what the PR act specified, and I do care. I wish someone in Washington was accountable for this and all the other misuses of public funds.


I'll 'fess up and say that I am neither a constitutional lawyer, not did read the entire Pittman Robertson act today, but here is some of it and I don't see anywhere that it specifies that monies can only be used for hunting activities. Seems to me that the terms "conservation" and "restoration" figure pretty prominantly. See below:


§ 669. Cooperation of Secretary of the Interior with States; conditions


The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife- restoration projects as hereinafter in this chapter set forth; but no money apportioned under this chapter to any State shall be expended therein until its legislature, or other State agency authorized by the State constitution to make laws governing the conservation of wildlife, shall have assented to the provision of this chapter and shall have passed laws for the conservation of wildlife which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department, except that, until the final adjournment of the first regular session of the legislature held after September 2, 1937, the assent of the Governor of the State shall be sufficient. The Secretary of the Interior and the State fish and game department of each State accepting the benefits of this chapter, shall agree upon the wildlife-restoration projects to be aided in such State under the terms of this chapter and all projects shall conform to the standards fixed by the Secretary of the Interior.

CREDIT(S)

(Sept. 2, 1937, c. 899, § 1, 50 Stat. 917; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. II, § 4(f), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2731, 53 Stat. 1433.)



§ 669a. Definitions


As used in this chapter--

(1) *the term "conservation" means the use of methods and procedures necessary or desirable to sustain healthy populations of wildlife, including all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, monitoring of populations, acquisition, improvement and management of habitat, live trapping and transplantation*, wildlife damage management, and periodic or total protection of a species or population, as well as the taking of individuals within wildlife stock or population if permitted by applicable State and Federal law;

(2) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior;

(3) the term "State fish and game department" or " State fish and wildlife department" means any department or division of department of another name, or commission, or official or officials, of a State empowered under its laws to exercise the functions ordinarily exercised by a State fish and game department or State fish and wildlife department.

(4) the term "wildlife" means any species of wild, free-ranging fauna including fish, and also fauna in captive breeding programs the object of which is to reintroduce individuals of a depleted indigenous species into previously occupied range;

(5) *the term "wildlife-associated recreation" means projects intended to meet the demand for outdoor activities associated with wildlife including, but not limited to, hunting and fishing, *wildlife observation and photography, such projects as construction or restoration of wildlife viewing areas, observation towers, blinds, platforms, land and water trails, water access, field trialing, trail heads, and access for such projects;

(6) the term "wildlife conservation and restoration program" means a program developed by a State fish and wildlife department and approved by the Secretary under section 669c(d) of this title, the projects that constitute such a program, which may be implemented in whole or part through grants and contracts by a State to other State, Federal, or local agencies (including those that gather, evaluate, and disseminate information on wildlife and their habitats), wildlife conservation organizations, and outdoor recreation and conservation education entities from funds apportioned under this title, and maintenance of such projects;

(7) the term "wildlife conservation education" means projects, including public outreach, intended to foster responsible natural resource stewardship; and

(8) the term "wildlife-restoration project" includes the wildlife conservation and restoration program and means the selection, restoration, rehabilitation, and improvement of areas of land or water adaptable as feeding, resting, or breeding places for wildlife, including acquisition of such areas or estates or interests therein as are suitable or capable of being made suitable therefor, and the construction thereon or therein of such works as may be necessary to make them available for such purposes and also including such research into problems of wildlife management as may be necessary to efficient administration affecting wildlife resources, and such preliminary or incidental costs and expenses as may be incurred in and about such projects.

CREDIT(S)

(Sept. 2, 1937, c. 899, § 2, 50 Stat. 917; July 2, 1956, c. 489, § 1, 70 Stat. 473; July 12, 1960, Pub.L. 86-624, § 10, 74 Stat. 412; Dec. 21, 2000, Pub.L. 106-553, § 1(a)(2) [Title IX, § 902(c)], 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A-119.)


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

TPhillips said:


> THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SUBSPECIES!
> originally it was canis lupus irremotus, now they are canis lupus occidentalis and way larger, more aggressive. Call the american society of mammologist. I remember it was a big controversy when they brought them.
> 
> Stop saying there the same, their not even close.


Emailed ASM and they referred me to a wolf biologist in Yellowstone. Am waiting for a response from him.


----------



## David Poffinbarger (May 22, 2009)

starjack said:


> Or till someone gets killed


Hopefully that doesn't happen...although the number of cougar attacks on humans in North America is exponentially higher than Human/Wolf attacks. I don't know if declaring a breeding cougar population and the resulting additional protection that they will receive will lower the odds of this happening any though.



road kill said:


> The biggest issue with that is the effect that stand has on the WDNR's credibility which leads to distrust.
> 
> *RK*


I agree 100%. Not to be labeled a "WiDNR sympathizer" but as I understand it they're sort caught between a rock and a hard place...The more popular but much more expensive decision(confirming a breeding, but endangered, population and have to do studies, management plans, etc...) or the unpopular(And credibility damaging) one that allows them more options for dealing with problem animals and allows them to use their limited funds and resources on other issues(Habitat, Parks, Deer, Turkey, Bear, Wolf, and other species, etc...) 

I feel confident saying that in today's economy the WiDNR budget is not going to be increased due to cougars, therefore any money they spend on cougars has to come from other programs...


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

TPhillips said:


> THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SUBSPECIES!
> originally it was canis lupus irremotus, now they are canis lupus occidentalis and way larger, more aggressive. Call the american society of mammologist. I remember it was a big controversy when they brought them.
> 
> Stop saying there the same, their not even close.


Here is the answer from the wolf biologist:

"They were not the same sub-species but this doesn't matter because taxonomy
is a human construct and it works well until you get down to fine details
of a difference. For example, for a rodent that can't get across a river
preventing genetic exhange sub-species work very well. But for wolves
nothing in North America is a geographic barrier preventing gene flow - so
they intermix to a high degree making sub-species classification less
useful. AND sub-species were reduced from 24 to 5 (because of the above)
and the subspecies that was in Yellowsotne got dropped - so it became
impossible then to reintroduce the same sub-species."

Douglas W. Smith
Leader
Yellowstone Wolf Project
YCR
P.O. Box 168
Officer's Row, Building 27
Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190
Phone: 307-344-2242


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

HPL said:


> Here is the answer from the wolf biologist:
> 
> "They were not the same sub-species but this doesn't matter because taxonomy
> is a human construct and it works well until you get down to fine details
> ...


The issue of course is that the inter breeding did NOT occur until man began manageing wolves.

Therefore the subspecies in his explanantion don't matter because they are not indeginous to the geographical area MAN introduced them to.

Back to my earlier point, the wolf that was re-introduced in WI is hated, wether deserved or not.
The DNR's secrecy/denial of the wolf population did not serve them well.
Especially since they now tell us we have to coexist, even though a year ago they denied the denied the wolves existance.

So, to make my point, we now have to coexist with something that doesn't exist.

Which is it and why should I beleive you???

*RK*


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL said:


> Here is the answer from the wolf biologist:
> 
> "They were not the same sub-species but this doesn't matter because taxonomy
> is a human construct and it works well until you get down to fine details
> ...


You said all of your reading only gave us two historical subspecies. Grey and Red. 

So, which information is correct? The fact that there "were" 24 sub-species which probably included some which did not always weight over 100lbs...

or, what you posted before?


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> You said all of your reading only gave us two historical subspecies. Grey and Red.
> 
> So, which information is correct? The fact that there "were" 24 sub-species which probably included some which did not always weight over 100lbs...
> 
> or, what you posted before?


Uh, no, that is NOT what I said. I said TWO SPECIES, not two subspecies. I tend to discount subspecies as they are much more of a human intellectual construct than species. Taxonomists generally fit into two groups, lumpers and splitters. Although not a taxonomist, I have generally held with the position of the lumpers.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

Does the sub-species even matter? If think we agree that they cross bred on their own where populations mixed. There were, however, some barriers to interbreeding among the various populations, even if only distance/proximity.

The reason that they had the original sub-species was because they were observing differences among the wolves in the different areas. There is a genetic component to that. So if they want to say there really shouldn't be any subspecies based on our understanding of the genetics etc, that's fine, but there were still regional differences in the likely gene pool that would lead to bigger or smaller wolves in a given area.

If you were dropping the wolves into the same kind of environment they were originally in with the same predator and prey species and ratios and without human intervention, the same species would likely end up being about the same size as those that were originally there (unless the genes for smaller wolves were completely extinguished in the pool being repopulated) because they would select for the best size to fit the region.

Since it's not the same though, the mix of predator and prey is different, they're going to select for the characteristics that make them most successful for the conditions they're in. 

If they repopulated with a gene pool that is likely to be bigger, and more aggressive, the initial generations would be bigger and more aggressive but those traits would diminish over time unless there is a competitive advantage to being bigger and more aggressive that exists now but did not exist originally.

Right?


----------



## dio82 (Jul 21, 2008)

Ranchers are some of the biggest whiners out there! I'm not wolf advocate at all but I do get sick of the ranchers complaining about predators when they pay very little to overgraze mountain land. I've been bow hunting in early fall and the meadows are full of cattle. I'm trying to hunt elk. I don't feel too sorry for the ranchers. Most of the time you ask them to hunt on their land and they want you pay them a fortune to do so, but they go and overgraze public lands for almost nothing.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> Does the sub-species even matter? If think we agree that they cross bred on their own where populations mixed. There were, however, some barriers to interbreeding among the various populations, even if only distance/proximity.
> 
> The reason that they had the original sub-species was because they were observing differences among the wolves in the different areas. There is a genetic component to that. So if they want to say there really shouldn't be any subspecies based on our understanding of the genetics etc, that's fine, but there were still regional differences in the likely gene pool that would lead to bigger or smaller wolves in a given area.
> 
> ...


Well, there are two issues here. 1: were the subspecies legitimate or simply the result of poor scientific method? and 2: if different subspecies, were they really significantly different in size/temperament? It seems to me that someone has posted on this thread at least one paper comparing the biometric data collected from animals harvested in the recent Idaho hunts with those from historical records and they were within the same parameters.


----------



## obx4me (Jan 29, 2011)

HPL, Did you vote for Barry Obama ? I am guessing yes.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> Well, there are two issues here. 1: were the subspecies legitimate or simply the result of poor scientific method? and 2: if different subspecies, were they really significantly different in size/temperament? It seems to me that someone has posted on this thread at least one paper comparing the biometric data collected from animals harvested in the recent Idaho hunts with those from historical records and they were within the same parameters.


It shouldn't matter if they were legitimate or not. As you said, it's a somewhat arbitrary division, and since they are within the same species, they would readily cross breed where there was that opportunity. So the only barriers would be social structure, distance/proximity, physical barriers. Obviously in the area we're talking about none of those are absolute barriers, so there was some mixing. I think it's pretty clear that different regions had different sized wolves. There's a genetic component to that regardless of subspecies or not.

As for the harvest data, I don't think we can just assume the 20% is a representative sample of the whole population. Typically hunts will over-select for the younger animals, which decrease the average weight of the sample.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

obx4me said:


> HPL, Did you vote for Barry Obama ? I am guessing yes.


Actually I voted for Ron Paul last time (not that that is pertinent to this issue). My politics tend to be more complex than the simple one issue type that seems to occur all too often these days. I am a social (and usually economic) conservative and an environmental liberal. Not a peta type liberal but the type liberal who hunts and fishes and eats meat, but is informed enough to be very aware of the effect deteriorating natural areas can have on the health and well being of the human race. The type of environmental liberal who knows that there are many instances of man not behaving in his own LONG TERM best interests when it comes to his stewardship of nature. The type of liberal who feels that maintaining a viable population of great whales is more important than the livelihoods of the whalers. The type of liberal who knows that biologic diversity is crucial to the longterm existence of mankind too. Too bad there are so many simple, one issue types in the conservative movement. That is why it is so hard for the Republicans to find a candidate that can win these days. You want to discuss politics, move over to POTUS.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> It shouldn't matter if they were legitimate or not. As you said, it's a somewhat arbitrary division, and since they are within the same species, they would readily cross breed where there was that opportunity. So the only barriers would be social structure, distance/proximity, physical barriers. Obviously in the area we're talking about none of those are absolute barriers, so there was some mixing.
> 
> *That is a big part of what I have been saying for pages.*
> 
> As for the harvest data, I don't think we can just assume the 20% is a representative sample of the whole population. Typically hunts will over-select for the younger animals, which decrease the average weight of the sample.


You may have a valid point about the harvest data. I haven't seen any data discussing the ages of the animals harvested. i bet it's out there, I just haven't run across it. However, the temperament part of some peoples' argument is so subjective as to be worthless. To say that they're more aggressive than the historic population is simply not supportable in any meaningful manner.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

HPL said:


> Uh, no, that is NOT what I said. I said TWO SPECIES, not two subspecies. I tend to discount subspecies as they are much more of a human intellectual construct than species. Taxonomists generally fit into two groups, lumpers and splitters. Although not a taxonomist, I have generally held with the position of the lumpers.


Wait what? Aren't a domestic dog and a wolf the same species?


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

I think that we are now splitting hairs. We have the power to control the wolves. Give it back to the States to figure out what a good number is and then get it done. Seems like we should be focused more on how to make our voices heard more effectively. The Animal Rights Activists have figured this PR crap out and if we don't do something about it, the wolf situation will be the least of our worries. "Vegans make better lovers?" Seriously... but it got more free publicity than anything on our side of the fence did. And not to be critical, but we need something better than "just shoot 'em". I hate that DU and other conservation organizations have to spend money on lobbying but I am finally starting to understand the necessity of it. Sadly "doing good work" is no longer good enough.

Just my .02 and worth what you paid for it.
Mark


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

duckkiller said:


> Too many animated movies depicting wild animals that seem so cuddly that have diluted the common sense of some folks with loud voices. To think we are better off with these preditors in our back yards is just crazy. It amazes me how many folks actually buy this BS.


It's the same ones who think their burger comes from the supermarket and not cows.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

achiro said:


> Wait what? Aren't a domestic dog and a wolf the same species?


I believe that domestic dogs have been classified as both _Canis lupus familiaris and Canis familiaris._ I don't know if that is a settled issue or not, but either way, I don't see what bearing that has on this particular discussion. Nobody has suggested introducing Saint Barnards into the north woods as far as I know. You are trying to compare domestic animals (which have been carefully and extensively altered by man) with what happens in natural selection. When you find a wild adult wolf the size of a toy poodle, I'll start listening to that comparison.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

achiro said:


> Wait what? Aren't a domestic dog and a wolf the same species?


Believe you're right Russ. When I took biology in high shcool 45 years ago, the test of two animals belonging to the same species was if they mated could they have fertile offspring. 

I believe that makes coyotes the same species also.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

MarkinMissouri said:


> Sadly "doing good work" is no longer good enough.
> 
> Just my .02 and worth what you paid for it.
> Mark


Real problem with that thought is that even here we can't agree on what constitutes "good work".


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

HPL said:


> Real problem with that thought is that even here we can't agree on what constitutes "good work".


Sad...Divided we will fall. Anybody know any good recipes for tofu... At least I hear the sex is good.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

HPL said:


> I believe that domestic dogs have been classified as both _Canis lupus familiaris and Canis familiaris._ I don't know if that is a settled issue or not, but either way, I don't see what bearing that has on this particular discussion. Nobody has suggested introducing Saint Barnards into the north woods as far as I know. You are trying to compare domestic animals (which have been carefully and extensively altered by man) with what happens in natural selection. When you find a wild adult wolf the size of a toy poodle, I'll start listening to that comparison.


You're the one saying subecies don't matter in the discussion of what animal was introduced.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

achiro said:


> Wait what? Aren't a domestic dog and a wolf the same species?


 
I have a bell sitting next to my laptop.... I just smacked it.... DING!!!!!


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

achiro said:


> You're the one saying subecies don't matter in the discussion of what animal was introduced.


That's not really an accurate representation of my stated position. What I have said is that 1. I approve of the (re) introduction of wild _C. lupus_ into the lower 48 states, 2. there is some question as to whether the animals brought in were a different "subspecies" from what was present historically, and 3. even if it is a different "subspecies" of wild, North American wolf, as long as it is a close analogue, I have no problem with that. Now the wolf biologist in Yellowstone has addressed point two and said that the imported wolves were not the same "subspecies" as the historical wolves, but that in fact the original subspecies is not even recognized as a subspecies anymore apparently because it was not sufficiently reproductively isolated from other "subspecies" in that part of North America. It appears to me from what I have read and what Doug Smith has said, that the imported animals ARE a fairly close analogue of the historical wolves that lived in the region (none of them look like any domestic dog I've ever seen if you want to drag domestic animals into the discussion) and so *IT'S OKEY-DOKEY WITH ME!!*


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I believe that domestic dogs have been classified as both _Canis lupus familiaris and Canis familiaris._ I don't know if that is a settled issue or not, but either way, I don't see what bearing that has on this particular discussion. Nobody has suggested introducing Saint Barnards into the north woods as far as I know. You are trying to compare domestic animals (which have been carefully and extensively altered by man) with what happens in natural selection. When you find a wild adult wolf the size of a toy poodle, I'll start listening to that comparison.
> __________________


It has bearing on all of life as we know it,,, 2 different species of the same genus can not breed and have viable offspring. Females are fertile and males are sterile.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Pete said:


> It has bearing on all of life as we know it,,,


Perhaps, but has no real bearing on this particular issue.


----------



## minnducker (Jan 29, 2010)

HPL -

Pittman Roberts again - I'm not a constitutional lawyer either. But the point
made in the videos was that the USFWS overstepped their bounds by using Pittman-Roberts funds for reintroduction of wolves.
This is based on the intent of the P-R act, which is to create a super-fund whose unused moneys are invested, for eventual allocation to individual states for projects they either developed, or sponsor. The amount available to each state is derived from a formula based on the number of firearm and archery hunters in that state, since those are the areas where the taxes come from.

From your post -

§ 669. Cooperation of Secretary of the Interior with States; conditions


The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife- restoration projects 

And, the Montana legislature and DNR not only did NOT cooperate, they issued memoranda in clear opposition to the wolf reintroduction.

Fair point or not ?? What say you?


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

minnducker said:


> HPL -
> 
> Pittman Roberts again - I'm not a constitutional lawyer either. But the point
> made in the videos was that the USFWS overstepped their bounds by using Pittman-Roberts funds for reintroduction of wolves.
> ...


That does seem to be a point, and as the part you quoted says "is authorized" not "shall" this line would seem to be even more on point: "The Secretary of the Interior and *the State fish and game department* (see definition below) of each State accepting the benefits of this chapter, *shall agree upon the wildlife-restoration projects to be aided in such State under the terms of this chapter"*, so that looks to me to strengthen your point, but again I'm not a lawyer and we all know how those things get resolved. 

I would also look at this definition:

The term "State fish and game department" or "State fish and wildlife department" means *any *department *or division of department * *or commission, or official or officials,* of a State empowered under its laws to exercise the functions ordinarily exercised by a State fish and game department or State fish and wildlife department. 

That seems to me to perhaps be sufficiently (and probably intentionally) vague as to allow for CYA on a project like this. Sounds like they might not necessarily have to have the agreement of the whole state, but I don't know how PR funds were justified in this case.

My initial response was to a post that said that PR funds were tagged to improve hunting and fishing and that was incorrect.


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

OK,
I know we are all thinking it, I'll be the one to post it.

As long as we are reintroducing "species" into the wild, I want the

WOOLY MAMMOTH reintroduced*!!*:shock:










That's all the people need to know!!!


*RK*


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

road kill said:


> OK,
> I know we are all thinking it, I'll be the one to post it.
> 
> As long as we are reintroducing "species" into the wild, I want the
> ...


 
The Russians are working on it


----------



## Keith Holsted (Jul 17, 2003)

Looks like some free wolf hunts are needed........


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Keith Holsted said:


> Looks like some free wolf hunts are needed........


 
Naw, we just need to move them all to Texas... They have plenty of land down there....Right?


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Naw, we just need to move them all to Texas... They have plenty of land down there....Right?


OK with me. There have been attempts to save both the native wolves in Texas, but they were as far as I know unsuccessful and now both the Red wolf and the Mexican subspecies of the timber (grey wolf) sadly are gone (the red wolf is extinct and the Mexican wolf is possibly hanging on in northwest Mexico).


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

HPL said:


> Perhaps, but has no real bearing on this particular issue.


It does if the subspecies are a different size. You have continued to argue against those that have stated as such. Now that you have been proven wrong you are trying to change the topic by saying it doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

achiro said:


> It does if the subspecies are a different size. You have continued to argue against those that have stated as such. Now that you have been proven wrong you are trying to change the topic by saying it doesn't matter anyway.


Here is Doug Smith's position on the question: (the "their" in his statement refers to folks who complain that the introduced animals are substantially different from the historic inhabitants). 

"It is the same animal - wolves travel so far and interbreed so much that
they have huge areas of hybridization - their argument is weak." 




Douglas W. Smith
Leader
Yellowstone Wolf Project
YCR
P.O. Box 168
Officer's Row, Building 27
Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190
Phone: 307-344-2242
Fax: 307-344-2211
[email protected]
http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wolves.htm
http://www.greateryellowstonescience.org/topics/biological/mammals/wolves

And you just aren't paying much attention, as I have said from the beginning that I don't care much about "subspecies" as long as the introduced animals are a reasonable analogue of the original inhabitants. Chihuahuas or Saint Barnards wouldn't be reasonable analogues. _C. lupus occidentalis_ is.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Hpl- problem with introducing a wolf that was so different than the original wolves is their much more efficient at killing game and they will wipe out other species altogether. If these wolves were released in Texas you wouldn't have a pig problem, but they would wipe out any remaining resident wolves, its like shooting fish in a bucket.

By the way, st. Bernard ARE just another darn subspecies of c. Lupus, trading one for another was a huge deal, 30% larger is not a reasonable analogue.
the leader of the Yellowstone wolf introduction projects opinion is a little bias don't you think? Why don't you tell us what peta thinks as well?


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Naw, we just need to move them all to Texas... They have plenty of land down there....Right?


Send um on down. We'll shoot the snot out of them.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

TPhillips said:


> Hpl- problem with introducing a wolf that was so different than the original wolves is their much more efficient at killing game and they will wipe out other species altogether. If these wolves were released in Texas you wouldn't have a pig problem, but they would wipe out any remaining resident wolves, its like shooting fish in a bucket.
> 
> By the way, st. Bernard ARE just another darn subspecies of c. Lupus, trading one for another was a huge deal, 30% larger is not a reasonable analogue.
> the leader of the Yellowstone wolf introduction projects opinion is a little bias don't you think? Why don't you tell us what peta thinks as well?


Who said that they are 30% larger? I have read at least one piece commenting on the biometrics of the Idaho wolf harvest and the animals seemed to fall within the parameters of the animals (whatever subspecies they may or may not have been) that were harvested at the turn of the century. Now, statistics was never really my strong suit, so I haven't been attempting to run any tests to evaluate standard deviation etc. but at least the impression I get is that there is very little difference (if any). 
It also seems unlikely to me that the introduced wolves will completely wipe out the native herbivores. Just not the way things usually work. Elk, moose, and deer all evolved subject to predation by wolves, cougars, bears, etc. They are all still here. Just because folks have gotten used to unnaturally high herbivore populations, doesn't mean that the way it should be. (I would refer you to "Thinking Like a Mountain" again)

*And YES!, YES!, YES!, I SAID THAT DOMESTIC DOGS ARE CONSIDERED A SUBSPECIES OF C. lupus!!! (just not a good analogue of the Timber Wolf) Crap!! how many times do I have to repeat myself when I am agreeing with you!???? READ my posts a bit more carefully!! * be the peanut, be the peanut, peanut the peanut.............geeeez.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

If anyone wants some good information on the wolves in Idaho check out Idaho Fish & Game's website and look at some of their reports for some good solid information. 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/?getPage=246

Of special interest is the document under 2010, 'August - Study Shows Effect of Predators on Idaho Elk.' In that study they mentioned that for Idaho that out of 29 zones, 10 are above management goals for elk, 13 are within management goals, and of the remaining six at least three zones lower elk numbers are due to wolves. So IMO this shows that they are not decimating the elk population. And where the elk numbers are low Fish and Game is taking approaches to fix that (wolf harvest, etc). The article also mentions that a huge drop in elk numbers happened after the wolf was introduced by two big reasons. One, the elk did not at first know how to avoid the predator so this contributed to an initial drop, and then a redistribution of the population as certain environments protect them better. Second, the winter of 1996-97 was a record setting winter and had a drastic effect on the elk outside of predation (see chart in the article). It does mention that Fish and Game has set a wolf population of about 500 to maintain the populations which is much lower than what the wolf is at now.

Another interesting article is the May 2009 issue where there is an article discussing a survey of Idahoans that they conducted to determine the opinion of wolf management. From the survey about 1/3 were reductionist, 1/3 were against reduction, and 1/3 were neutral. As such Fish and Game is trying to manage the population in a way that will be acceptable to most as they cannot make everyone happy.

As far as the subspecies controversy--personally I think it's a silly argument but I understand better where it came from. Weights obtained from the wolf harvest support that the Idaho wolves are roughly the same size as the original population. In addition, radio-tracking data show that wolves as far North in Canada as the reintroduced wolves came have shown them to migrate as far down into Idaho and Montana. Also, 2/3 biologists consulted during reintroduction felt like occidentalis was more similar to the original Idaho wolf...the one biologist who did not, Nowak, even admitted that it appeared at the time that occidentalis was already on its way migrating south. In addition, the classification of wolf sub-species is highly subjective with some experts concluding as many as 24, and other taking the lumping view and only viewing 5 distinct subspecies.

In the large scheme of things, wolves are already here. They have been reintroduced and the population has recovered. It doesn't do much good arguing about reintroduction because it's a done deal and a dead horse. What matters now is managing the population--something that the state should be doing and has had to fight for in the last few years.* I hope some day we can all move to a point where the wolf is just another predator that is managed rather than this hyped up, political animal.*


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL said:


> Just because folks have gotten used to unnaturally high herbivore populations, doesn't mean that the way it should be. (I would refer you to "Thinking Like a Mountain" again)quote]
> 
> I think you'll have a hard time backing up this statement with ANY scientific fact.
> 
> ...


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Keep researching Hpl, you'll find where the original subspecies was 30% smaller, and the arguments they originally had before they introduced the larger ones.....I was talking about if they introduced these wolves in Texas, the native wolves of northern Mexico and Texas would be wiped away. 

My prediction is still the same, wolf and elk populations will experience large swings just as un touched populations of moose and wolves do in ak, eventually they will be another predator with no bag limit and no closed season and elk hunting in the nw will be something of the past.


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

If someone wants to do the digging ( no pun intended ) get the book by Webb named "Indian Knoll" and read about wolf skulls' measurements from it. Then get the modern day wolf skull measurements. Keep in mind where the skulls came from of course.


----------



## justin300mag (May 28, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> If anyone wants some good information on the wolves in Idaho check out Idaho Fish & Game's website and look at some of their reports for some good solid information.
> 
> http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/media/?getPage=246
> 
> ...


I am not going to engage in any type of arguement on this. I am just going to give you a little info. I am a avid hunter and I am actively engaged with many other VERY serious hunters including several clubs and organizations. If there is anybody in this state that is REALLY REALLY serious about hunting there is a good chance I know them and there is one thing every one of us will tell you when it comes to Fish and Game and Wolves----*THEY LIE* Fish and game needs to make money and they need to sell tags. I met a Fish and game officer in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness area that actually was truthful with us, he explained the devastation caused by wolves and the things they were told to hide or not report to make numbers sound better etc. He even told us things I cant repeat because he would lose his job. The truth does not grease the wheels, money does.


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

justin300mag said:


> ...................................................when it comes to Fish and Game and Wolves----*THEY LIE* Fish and game needs to make money and they need to sell tags. I met a Fish and game officer in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness area that actually was truthful with us, he explained the devastation caused by wolves and the things they were told to hide or not report to make numbers sound better etc. He even told us things I cant repeat because he would lose his job. The truth does not grease the wheels, money does.


Been thinking this about the lies for some years now. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

They posted in aug that there were 0 elk kills by wolves in island park for the year... they must have done 0 actual days in the field looking besides from their plane we are paying for. And they paid to have blm land noxious weeds eaten down by goats (not enough wild game left to do it) the goat herder told people in town he had seen no wolf sign and had lost no goats, ... I must have found close to 50 goat carcase's and a bunch of dead elk, and that was just in the first few days. 

Im done buying tags in wolf infested zones, they can fund their science project some other way, and I will hunt in wolf free areas.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Tim, 

5 years ago, 25 years before that.....there was not a single wolf in the Teannaway....according to "Biologists". 

Last year, the pack suddenly appeared. Some biologists must really have a hard time monitoring a relatively "closed" area???? I'll put this simply. The Teannaway is a heavily recreated area. The area is used year round by hikers, hunters, snomobilers, horsemen and 4x4 enthusiasts.

All of these groups reported it for years and yet, the "BIOLOGISTS" never heard of wolves in the area?? Over and over again, people want to dismiss what the true "field biologists", the people who use and recreate on the land, are reporting. 

If wolves travel in and out on their own accord with natures blessing, I won't fight it. If wolves are brought in because some person "thinks" we don't have a good balance in nature, I oppose. 

I have a DVD from a guide service whom I have friends that have used on Babine Lake, BC. I had dinner with a guide from their service which I mentioned earlier. If anyone wants a great group to hunt wolves with and a 100% success rate....PM me, They'll get you a shot wolf and more on the trap line. Really great guys.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Tim,
> 
> 5 years ago, 25 years before that.....there was not a single wolf in the Teannaway....according to "Biologists".
> 
> ...


I talked to an outfitter from Idaho last week. He said that he has hunted the area for 40 years and that there have always been wolves in his area but just a pack or two and their numbers were stable. Then with the "reintroduction" they are gone and now a much bigger wolf is there in much bigger numbers.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

justin300mag said:


> I am not going to engage in any type of arguement on this. I am just going to give you a little info. I am a avid hunter and I am actively engaged with many other VERY serious hunters including several clubs and organizations. If there is anybody in this state that is REALLY REALLY serious about hunting there is a good chance I know them and there is one thing every one of us will tell you when it comes to Fish and Game and Wolves----*THEY LIE* Fish and game needs to make money and they need to sell tags. I met a Fish and game officer in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness area that actually was truthful with us, he explained the devastation caused by wolves and the things they were told to hide or not report to make numbers sound better etc. He even told us things I cant repeat because he would lose his job. The truth does not grease the wheels, money does.


I am very sorry I have not had this experience and nothing to substantiate or negate that. I just don't know. Sorry if it is true. Fish and Game has always appeared as relatively neutral entity for me. Who else do you trust for reliable, non-biased information?


----------



## O.clarki (Feb 7, 2012)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> So, a good field trial lab and a show labs have the same body type and weight charactaristics huh? They have have the same latin name??


That they do..


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

To those of you who are saying that the biologists and other officials are lying and YOU know that there have been wolves in an area for years, show me the pictures. Show me a road killed wolf, show me photos of the scat, show me a photo of the foot prints in the snow (you'll need a ruler in the photo to prove size.) Show me the DNA reports from some hair you found on a branch or snagged on a fence. SHOW ME PROOF. I'm not interested in what you think you know or what your super hunter buddies think they know. Show me proof. 

To those of you who are saying dig deeper, the evidence is there. If you know where it is, cite it. Tell us where it is. Spell it out. I'm pretty sure we'll all go look at it, just tell us where it is.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL said:


> To those of you who are saying that the biologists and other officials are lying and YOU know that there have been wolves in an area for years, show me the pictures. Show me a road killed wolf, show me photos of the scat, show me a photo of the foot prints in the snow (you'll need a ruler in the photo to prove size.) Show me the DNA reports from some hair you found on a branch or snagged on a fence. SHOW ME PROOF. I'm not interested in what you think you know or what your super hunter buddies think they know. Show me proof.
> 
> To those of you who are saying dig deeper, the evidence is there. If you know where it is, cite it. Tell us where it is. Spell it out. I'm pretty sure we'll all go look at it, just tell us where it is.


Why don't you prove they have NOT been there? You haven't talked with Ranchers in Central Idaho who have been SSS'ing for years. The guys who pride themselves on honesty and a handshake, the type of old guys who look you in the eye when you talk to them and say grace with every meal.


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

We had wolves long before the re introduction. Just like we have no grizzlys in the area I hunt after tracking one I finally saw it. I know of several that were shot years ago but that was when the three SSS applied. We never had elk south of the Salmon River in Idaho either until they were brought in on train. I can't remember what year. My Grandfather was part of the crew that brought them in. I don't think to many folks know that. I am sure their were Elk in the area but damn few. Not very many old timers got elk back in those days. My Grandmother lived outside of the Blackfoot Indian reservation and they owned a ranch and store on the the reservation. she tells me stories of the wolves in the area. Not sure if she has any pictures of them. She has everything else. 

http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/documents/Weckworth_etal_CoastalCanis2010_JMamm.pdf


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Why don't you prove they have NOT been there? You haven't talked with Ranchers in Central Idaho who have been SSS'ing for years. The guys who pride themselves on honesty and a handshake, the type of old guys who look you in the eye when you talk to them and say grace with every meal.


It's pretty ironic that you seemingly admire and are touting the honesty and integrity of men whom you are also saying knowingly and willfully broke the law and then cowardly lied about it (that is what SSS is all about, isn't it?) (Seems to me that there is something in the bible about lying (I think they're against it))


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> HPL said:
> 
> 
> > Just because folks have gotten used to unnaturally high herbivore populations, doesn't mean that the way it should be. (I would refer you to "Thinking Like a Mountain" again)quote]
> ...


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

Waterdogs I had read that they thought there were already wolves in the area--and even that occidentalis might have migrated a few already. However, the ultimate conclusion I think they reached was there was too few to substantiate a population. There was also some speculation that there might be some of the original wolf still out there--but again, they decided not enough to have a very viable population. There was some argument at the time that they should not release occidentalis if the original subspecies (but remember subspecies is subjective) was still there because it could invalidate the Endangered Species Act. But I digress again--we can argue reintroduction all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it has been done. It's good to know how we got here, but IMO this is not the key issue at stake anymore.


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

my question is who decides too few to substantiate a population. They are now in Idaho in much larger numbers than we have ever seen before. The Elk population in many units were already very low. What gets me is one of the units that was reported to have reached their numbers they wanted .Their is not a 1/4 of the elk their were ten years ago. My friend fly's that unit and at one time you could fly and count over 4,500 head now you are lucky to get over 100. I do not blame that on Wolves. I blame that on are F&G's poor management and bad winters. The units that are suffering from Wolf depredation are all the unit but really the ones to the north are getting hit the most.. I think people that have never been to these area's do not understand the vast rugged terrrain. It is amazing country. I love taking folks that have never been out west hunting. They just freak a little but it gives them a better sense of what real hunting is. No food plots, No feeders just you your rifle a pack and a few million acres and you better have a sense of freedom and a good pair of boots.I have noticed that the wolves were not in the area I hunt deer since they opened the season on them. It was just the last 4 or so years I saw a few and lots of tracks but last year their were none. I think the fact that you can legally shoot them has kept them away in some area's. I think trapping has been pretty successful and gunning from the air. I guess 14 were shot in the Lolo zone. I went to a Pro Wolf website from Colorado and man you want to talk about some freaks. It is scarey that their are people that think that way. I do not believe in the kill them all but they need to be managed properly. They have no natural predator other than man disease and eating themselves out of house and home.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

Waterdogs I think I can agree with a lot of what you say (don't kill them all, but do manage them). I am REALLY happy that they have a season on them now and I really hope that helps with some of this livestock depradation by teaching them to stay away and fear man more. In the report I directed everyone to earlier back in 2010 Fish and Game did say that they felt like the population should be around 500 which is where it was at in 2005 and since then they noticed larger spikes in livestock predation (hence why they chose that number, apparently). The wolf population is substantially higher than that now. Part of the problem, I'm sure, is the wretched legal entanglements and politics surrounding the wolf preventing the state from managing it. Personally I don't have the knowledge/experience to have an opinion on what a reasonable size population is--I just have to hope that the state can figure that out and manage it.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL said:


> It's pretty ironic that you seemingly admire and are touting the honesty and integrity of men whom you are also saying knowingly and willfully broke the law and then cowardly lied about it (that is what SSS is all about, isn't it?) (Seems to me that there is something in the bible about lying (I think they're against it))


 
When they are killing your livestock you have a right to protect your herd. Especially, if the animal doesn't exist. 

You really need to spend some time in the woods. Sitting from your desk, selecting articles which support your ill-informed agenda, while "preaching" to guys who actually spend time scounting and then weeks later during open season in the woods......

What makes your opinion carry no weight what so ever is that people have first hand accounts, people who hunt and live in an area yet, you sit from Texas telling someone in Idaho or Washington what is and isn't there and call them liars and lawbreakers. Your ignorance builds steadily the more you post.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Hpl -- I dont believe anything anybody says or shows you will change your mind, there is plenty of mis-information the other way for you to back up the extreme enviromentilists side. The wolves are here to stay, short of trapping, poison and arial hunts by everybody. Elk, coyote, fox, deer hunting and raising livestock is whats lost. And mismanagement is as much to blame as the idiotic choice of wolf to transplant. This subject on wolves was beat to death years ago, its like your just hearing about it now that the repercussions are the being seen. If its going to take photos and hair samples to change your opinion on something that doesn't affect you because you can't believe the words of people who are there in the field on a regular basis or live in the thick if it over a pencil pushing hippie who flew over it once or twice and went on a nature hike for a mile then this debate is completely useless.

One more thing to compare the introduction of the larger more efficient wolves to...
Its like the bermese python in the everglades to replace a long extinct other snake.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> When they are killing your livestock you have a right to protect your herd. Especially, if the animal doesn't exist.
> 
> You really need to spend some time in the woods. Sitting from your desk, selecting articles which support your ill-informed agenda, while "preaching" to guys who actually spend time scounting and then weeks later during open season in the woods......
> 
> What makes your opinion carry no weight what so ever is that people have first hand accounts, people who hunt and live in an area yet, you sit from Texas telling someone in Idaho or Washington what is and isn't there and call them liars and lawbreakers. Your ignorance builds steadily the more you post.


So it's OK to break the law as long as it is in the furtherance of taking care of your family and what's yours? I guess that means that you have no problem with the local drug dealer plying his trade as long as he is supporting his wife and kids, or with the folks immigrating illegally into the US in order to better their lot and provide for their families? I believe what you are describing is called "situational ethics". 
After all your posts, I'm not clear what your beef is or what your position is on wolves in the lower forty eight. We know you disdain education and feel that the government is somehow out to harm you, but no real indication as to what you think should be done.
I have said repeatedly that I approve of wolves in the lower 48, and that I have no problem with wolf hunts once viable, huntable populations are established. I have also provided citations from various sources that seem to indicate that the elk population in the lower 48 is at a pretty much all time high, even though wolves are killing some of them. At least one other poster and I have provided information that indicates that regardless what subspecies the wolves are, they are within the size parameters of the wolves that historically inhabited the area. Several of the papers I have cited are scholarly works from peer reviewed publications. Some were from popular publications. Other were written by well respected members of the scientific community. Some were philosophical pieces, some hard research, some elk vs wolf specific, some more general wildlife principle. When it was suggested that I contact the American Society of Mammalogists, I did and they directed me to a wolf specialist. I posted that specialist's comments. You discount all that and instead rely on what has been historically and regularly proven unreliable, anecdotal observation. Don't know what else I can say.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

HPL said:


> So it's OK to break the law as long as it is in the furtherance of taking care of your family and what's yours? I guess that means that you have no problem with the local drug dealer plying his trade as long as he is supporting his wife and kids, or with the folks immigrating illegally into the US in order to better their lot and provide for their families?


That's the biggest problem with your argument. Those activities are *ILLEGAL.* Protecting your livelyhood and property is not. The constitution guarantees those rights. Wolves have absolutely no rights guarenteed by our constitution.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Dman said:


> That's the biggest problem with your argument. Those activities are *ILLEGAL.* Protecting your livelyhood and property is not. The constitution guarantees those rights. Wolves have absolutely no rights guarenteed by our constitution.


Correct me if I'm missed something here. As an endangered species (rightly or wrongly), wolves are protected by federal law and thus killing them is illegal, is it not? You would perhaps say that selling drugs is a greater crime than killing an endangered species, but I guarantee that I could find plenty of folks that would disagree. There are also plenty of folks that believe that illegal immigration is not only justified, but a good thing. If you are OK with breaking the law, at least be consistent. Also, since I'm not a constitutional scholar, I would really appreciate it if you would direct me to the part of the constitution that allows me to break the law to keep an endangered species from harming me financially.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

HPL said:


> Correct me if I'm missed something here. As an endangered species (rightly or wrongly), wolves are protected by federal law and thus killing them is illegal, is it not? You would perhaps say that selling drugs is a greater crime than killing an endangered species, but I guarantee that I could find plenty of folks that would disagree. There are also plenty of folks that believe that illegal immigration is not only justified, but a good thing. If you are OK with breaking the law, at least be consistent. Also, since I'm not a constitutional scholar, I would really appreciate it if you would direct me to the part of the constitution that allows me to break the law to keep an endangered species from harming me financially.


Not in the constitution.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

HPL said:


> Correct me if I'm missed something here. As an endangered species (rightly or wrongly), wolves are protected by federal law and thus killing them is illegal, is it not? You would perhaps say that selling drugs is a greater crime than killing an endangered species, but I guarantee that I could find plenty of folks that would disagree. There are also plenty of folks that believe that illegal immigration is not only justified, but a good thing. If you are OK with breaking the law, at least be consistent. Also, since I'm not a constitutional scholar, I would really appreciate it if you would direct me to the part of the constitution that allows me to break the law to keep an endangered species from harming me financially.


Simple. Read the constitution. It only takes a few minutes.
The constitution is the PRIMARY and FUNDAMENTAL law that this country is based on. Many laws are established in the country today and have been allowed to be enforsed that are not constitutional.

Show me in the constitution where any animal has a single constitutional right.

You can't because it doesn't exist.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Hpl, what makes you think that wolves are endangered? They've been de-listed and are recovered in the areas we are talking about, there is a hunting season and you can legally shoot them if your livestock or pets are in danger.

If your pet happens to be a bitch half wolf in heat staked out a few hundred yards from your shooting bench, you might be smart but defiantly not illegal.

And like I said, you can find lots of viable info on both sides, but much of this is a few years old now, we are moving on to solutions to the wolf epidemic.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL, You seem to conveniently mis-state and incorrectly summarize the established facts that have been presented to support your position. You have offered nothing but speculation as to the sizes, no proof. You've been shown to be wrong on the subspecies point and so instead decide that's not relevant. You continue to site sources who may very well be scientists, but who clearly have an agenda - they supported and support putting wolves back. You require those arguing against you show some kind of proof, but you show nothing of the sort to back your opinions save opinions. Others have cited first hand observation, and eyewitness reports, but you discount those because they don't support your position.

There is no reason we needed to re-introduce wolves. That's a fact. It might be a good thing, but that's an opinion.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Besides, sss is a good ethical approach to elk conservation, but id at least make a report for them being in with my livestock/pets. The little bits of information they get is likely a small fraction of what actually happens. They got in with my friends horses and killed one in sep. But he couldn't be convinced to report it, guess he figures f&g wont or can't help and figures he'll take care of the problem himself.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

Well let's be fair....

First off, actually, from everything I gather there certainly has been a drop in the elk population pre-wolf and it has not been the same since. Even Fish and Game will admit that. Certainly they cite many causes (including rough winters, deteriorating habitat, etc) but wolves contribute.

Conversely, there are also many studies that suggest wolves increase biodiversity and biologists consider them keystone species because of this.



> The reintroduction of wolves has reportedly increased biodiversity within Yellowstone National Park. Along with (and partly because of) an increase in new-growth vegetation, such as aspen and willow trees, which has resulted from the reduction in elk numbers. The aspen and willow were able to recover because not only was the elk population reduced because of predation due to the wolves, but they quit venturing as deep into thickets due to the fear of being attacked by wolves in an area of very low visibility. This process of top predators regulating the lower sections of the trophic pyramid was dubbed, "the ecology of fear" by William J. Ripple and Robert L. Bestcha [9] In addition to the restoration of vegetation several important species such as the beaver (which had also become extinct from the park) and red fox have also recovered, probably due to the wolves keeping coyote populations under control.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction

We're all allowed to have our opinion of course. There's certainly some validity to either side, JMO.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

justin300mag said:


> I am not going to engage in any type of arguement on this. I am just going to give you a little info. I am a avid hunter and I am actively engaged with many other VERY serious hunters including several clubs and organizations. If there is anybody in this state that is REALLY REALLY serious about hunting there is a good chance I know them and there is one thing every one of us will tell you when it comes to Fish and Game and Wolves----*THEY LIE* Fish and game needs to make money and they need to sell tags. I met a Fish and game officer in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness area that actually was truthful with us, he explained the devastation caused by wolves and the things they were told to hide or not report to make numbers sound better etc. He even told us things I cant repeat because he would lose his job. The truth does not grease the wheels, money does.


 
Of course they lie! That is why we only have a population of 200 Mt. Lions here but yet every year they raise the harvest limit. This year's limit is 70 cats by the end of March. We are at 68 as of tonight. BUT we only have 200 in the area.


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

The book that I am reading at this time is by Theodore Roosevelt and he mentioned the red wolves in South America. He mentions that they are taller than the local dogs for that area but he seems to have thought that the dogs and wolves in that area crossed rather freely back then. I don't know if he was correct or not but I wonder if those wolves were the same as the ones that used to be in Texas.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

You should find the book Alaska wolf man, a story about a man who spent his life living with and dealing with wolves, I couldn't put that book down!


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

charly_t said:


> The book that I am reading at this time is by Theodore Roosevelt and he mentioned the red wolves in South America. He mentions that they are taller than the local dogs for that area but he seems to have thought that the dogs and wolves in that area crossed rather freely back then. I don't know if he was correct or not but I wonder if those wolves were the same as the ones that used to be in Texas.


Yes, I believe so. As far as I know, there have only been two species of wolves in the new world (at least since the arrival of Europeans), the Grey wolf _Canis lupus_, and the Red Wolf _Canis rufus_.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Dman said:


> Not in the constitution.


But you just said in your previous post that the constitution allowed you to break the law to prevent financial harm to yourself. Now it's NOT in the constitution? Well, which is it?


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Dman said:


> Simple. Read the constitution. It only takes a few minutes.
> The constitution is the PRIMARY and FUNDAMENTAL law that this country is based on. Many laws are established in the country today and have been allowed to be enforsed that are not constitutional.
> 
> Show me in the constitution where any animal has a single constitutional right.
> ...


Never said that wolves had any "constitutional rights". You're the one that said that you had the constitutional right to break the law to protect your financial position. I don't think that the constitution gives you that right and just wanted you to point me to the exact section that does, that's all. Just give me "chapter and verse" and I'll believe you. As you said, it won't take that long to find it. Show me.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> HPL, You seem to conveniently mis-state and incorrectly summarize the established facts that have been presented to support your position. You have offered nothing but speculation as to the sizes, no proof. You've been shown to be wrong on the subspecies point and so instead decide that's not relevant. You continue to site sources who may very well be scientists, but who clearly have an agenda - they supported and support putting wolves back. You require those arguing against you show some kind of proof, but you show nothing of the sort to back your opinions save opinions. Others have cited first hand observation, and eyewitness reports, but you discount those because they don't support your position.
> 
> There is no reason we needed to re-introduce wolves. That's a fact. It might be a good thing, but that's an opinion.


Not an accurate summarization of any of my stated positions:

1. Subspecies. Two points here. First, some were using subspecies and species interchangeably and they are not. Second, I have said from the very beginning that I wasn't particularly concerned about subspecies as long as it is a close analogue (and no one has cited any study that proves that it is not). Someone else posted a piece that stated that the introduced sub-species was the same one and then someone else contradicted that. I did a little digging on my own and found articles on both sides of that issue and have said so. I also continuously (and from the beginning) said that I thought the subspecies issue was a non-issue. I have posted links to at least one paper that discusses wolf taxonomy and explains why the new world subspecies of _C. lupus_ have been reduced by many from 24 to 5. That paper's main point was that the original 24 Ss were not sufficiently reproductively isolated to qualify as subspecies and that there was certainly genetic mixing of several of the originally recognized subspecies including the two in question here. That seems a pretty simple concept if you understand the general principles of taxonomy. 

2. As to animal sizes, you are right, I haven't been there with a tape and scale to measure any of these animals myself, but you are wrong that I am only posting speculation. At least one other member and I have posted links to articles that discuss the sizes of current wolves harvested in Idaho (I believe it was) in comparison to the historical data, and the wolves are very similar in size and weight according to those articles. 

3. You accuse the people writing the various papers which I have cited as having an agenda and yet you seem to consider the sources mentioned by others to be as pure as driven snow. The people citing "first hand" observation and eye witness reports also have a clear agenda and are mostly saying "I have a friend who heard from a guy that there is a guy over in the next county that says.........". Well, I really don't care if they all sit around the dinner table holding hands as they say grace, that is simply NOT reliable information in my book. Sorry.

4. Simply because you assert that it is a FACT that there was no reason that wolves "needed" to be brought back doesn't make it so. That is actually YOUR opinion. You may be right, but then again...........? In fact, there may be many very good reasons that wolves "needed" to be brought back. We may not even be aware of them at this time.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

In all this discussion of wolves, the thing that seems to upset people the most is the effect these "new" wolves are having on elk. Yet there has been no discussion as to whether the particular subspecies in question (McKenzie Valley Wolf and Rocky Mountain Elk) exist or have existed together naturally. This seems to me to be a crucial question in the discussion and yet no one has even mentioned it. Well, today I looked that up and indeed, the Rocky Mountain Elks *CURRENT* and *HISTORIC* ranges significantly overlap the *CURRENT* and *HISTORIC* range of _C. lupus occidentalis_. So, again, the argument that the current pairing of those two subspecies is something new giving the wolves some sort of unfair advantage would seem to be just plain incorrect. Apparently the Rocky Mtn Elk evolved under pressure from the very animal we have been discussing. Does that seem to anyone else to be a significant point?


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

HPL said:


> As far as I know, there have only been two species of wolves in the new world (at least since the arrival of Europeans), the Grey wolf _Canis lupus_, and the Red Wolf _Canis rufus_.


Wrong - Canis lupus is not a subspecies, it is a species.
Red wolf - Canis Lupus Rufus, yes it was an east coast wolf.
mexican wolf - Canis Lupus Baileyi, mexico and texas, will be exctinct when yellowstone wolfs make it down that far and wipe them out.
Old yellowstone wolfs - Canis Lupus irremotus, yes they could have planted those.
Midwestern wolves - Canis Lupus Nubilus, a comparable choice for transplanting.
Canadian wolves - Canis Lupus Occidentalis, largest and most aggressive subspecies, these are the wolves transplanted.

(I have said from the very beginning that I wasn't particularly concerned about subspecies as long as it is a close analogue)

Your not, but we are, or were before they were released, so now the elk that are down by 50% and greater in some areas are. As I said before, if that's a close analogue then so was a st. bernard.

(You accuse the people writing the various papers which I have cited as having an agenda and yet you seem to consider the sources mentioned by others to be as pure as driven snow. The people citing "first hand" observation and eye witness reports also have a clear agenda)

The people writing the various papers have an agenda, their being paid to write and paid to spend everyday doing what they love! So why would they do anything other than protect that! The more they get to study the wolf's the better off they are. 
The people citing "first hand" observations and eye witness reports agenda is clear! Protect they're family, livestock, and hunting rights, and conservation of their hunting lands.

Have you ever been to the greater yellowstone area? Have you ever seen a wolf kill? Do you really hunt? Have you learned anything by all the research you've done?


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

HPL said:


> In all this discussion of wolves, the thing that seems to upset people the most is the effect these "new" wolves are having on elk. Yet there has been no discussion as to whether the particular subspecies in question (McKenzie Valley Wolf and Rocky Mountain Elk) exist or have existed together naturally. This seems to me to be a crucial question in the discussion and yet no one has even mentioned it. Well, today I looked that up and indeed, the Rocky Mountain Elks *CURRENT* and *HISTORIC* ranges significantly overlap the *CURRENT* and *HISTORIC* range of _C. lupus occidentalis_. So, again, the argument that the current pairing of those two subspecies is something new giving the wolves some sort of unfair advantage would seem to be just plain incorrect. Apparently the Rocky Mtn Elk evolved under pressure from the very animal we have been discussing. Does that seem to anyone else to be a significant point?


Yes, they did share some of the same ranges, so do coyotes. yes they rocky mtn elk will evolve most likely as long as there remains a decent number of them, but how long will this evolution take? will my grandkids be able to hunt elk? great grand kids maybe?


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

TPhillips said:


> Wrong - _Canis lupus_ is not a subspecies, it is a species.
> Red wolf - _Canis *l*upus *r*ufus_, yes it was an east coast wolf.
> 
> 
> ...



Did you even read what I wrote? What was "wrong". I didn't ever say that C. lupus was a subspecies (as you can see, no sub-specific epithet). What I did say was that there were at one time (until a couple of decades ago) two distinct SPECIES of wolves in North America. C. lupus and C. rufus. I am aware that there was some discussion at one time as to whether C. rufus was in fact a true separate species, but it was taught as such when I was in school. 
As far as the various agendas, the one thing that is patently clear is that the folks you cite have selfish, venal motives. they are NOT interested ini what is best for the habitat or the general environment, but only in their own livelihoods or recreation. Perhaps many of the others have the same motivations, but some are more unselfish, and holistic. I personally gain nothing from the presence of wolves in any part of North America, and yet, believe that their presence enriches the environment (same goes for alligators, rattlesnakes, and spiders, by the way). Send me some citations of more recent papers on Elk numbers than the ones I have posted. Perhaps you are right, but the papers I have read and cited say that the North American Elk herd is in pretty good shape and that much of the decline is (you're gonna hate this part) hunter driven. (That was from a piece by the North American Elk Project I believe). I got the impression from reading about them that they are sort of the DU of elkdom, so absolutely NOT anti-hunter.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

new wolves









a little bigger than the original accounts of 90 lb. wolfs before they were extinct


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

TPhillips said:


> Yes, they did *(Not just "did", but DO)* share some of the same ranges, so do coyotes (coyotes are something of a non-sequitur). yes they rocky mtn elk will *(not will, but HAVE)* evolve*d* most likely as long as there remains a decent number of them, but how long will this evolution take? will my grandkids be able to hunt elk? great grand kids maybe?


It's not wolves that you need to worry about as far as hunting opportunities are concerned, it's habitat loss due to human population expansion.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

HPL said:


> It's not wolves that you need to worry about as far as hunting opportunities are concerned, it's habitat loss due to human population expansion.


Hahaha, ya right, that's why we have new range land for cows and goats, because of habitat loss, and I thought we were paying the goat herder to just feed the wolves . Somebodys way of saving a few elk. 

Did you try Idaho, Montana, Wyoming fish and game elk counts? There a little high but there's one place you can look.


You need to go there and walk around 20 years ago and today. Heck just go there once!


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL said:


> It's not wolves that you need to worry about as far as hunting opportunities are concerned, it's habitat loss due to human population expansion.


 
you are clueless


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> you are clueless


I read these posts & believe HPL should relocate to Bellingham - it would fit right in with the crazies up there .


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HPL said:


> Not an accurate summarization of any of my stated positions:
> 
> 1. Subspecies. Two points here. First, some were using subspecies and species interchangeably and they are not. Second, I have said from the very beginning that I wasn't particularly concerned about subspecies as long as it is a close analogue (and no one has cited any study that proves that it is not). Someone else posted a piece that stated that the introduced sub-species was the same one and then someone else contradicted that. I did a little digging on my own and found articles on both sides of that issue and have said so. I also continuously (and from the beginning) said that I thought the subspecies issue was a non-issue. I have posted links to at least one paper that discusses wolf taxonomy and explains why the new world subspecies of _C. lupus_ have been reduced by many from 24 to 5. That paper's main point was that the original 24 Ss were not sufficiently reproductively isolated to qualify as subspecies and that there was certainly genetic mixing of several of the originally recognized subspecies including the two in question here. That seems a pretty simple concept if you understand the general principles of taxonomy.
> 
> ...


Regarding your list...

1. Species - there you go again with your condescending attitude. It's getting old. The species sub-species argument is not relevant. What is relevant is if the wolves that were introduced are significantly different than the ones that were there before. It appears certain that they are different, and some of that difference is likely to have a genetic source. Regardless of the subspecies, there are geographical differences in populations - it really doesn't matter what you call it, but the differences absolutely do matter. Although not to you because you're all the way down in TX. 

2. Size - You imply that there is proof that they are the same size based on a limited amount of harvest data that includes nothing more than the average weight of the carcasses. In such a limited sample, with no other information, it's not possible to conclude much of anything about the rest of the population. One could just as easily conclude that most of them were juveniles and so the weight understates the weight of the overall population significantly.

3. I didn't say anyone's motives are as clear as the driven snow. Your implication is dishonest, but consistent with your style or argument so not surprising. The "scientists" you quote clearly do have an agenda. The problem with you and your ilk among the extreme environmentalists is that you somehow believe that your motives are pure and objective because you're against people. You can talk about thinking like a mountain all you want, but that's just meaningless. You can't predict the future. You don't know the long term impact of the actions related to the wolf reintroduction - nobody does. You DO have an agenda. The arguments to reintroduce wolves in a "managed population" were carefully designed to make it hard to disagree with. But, what you also realized is that your friends in PETA and HSUS would make it virtually impossible to manage them, and would happily paint the ranchers, guides, hunters etc as the bad guys. You don't even get your hands dirty and can pretend to be above it all. The problem with scientists is that they come in at least with an opinion, and often with a cause. Their study is designed to prove their outcome, and they're obviously happy to bury evidence to the contrary or exile those among their group who might not be rabid environmentalists. Similar to the media, they've been corrupted to the point where most of their results cannot be trusted. Then again, you go on a condescending rant, discounting first hand reports, and reports from ranchers who live in the area. Somehow them saying grace makes them untrustworthy. Think that says a lot about you.

4. The facts.

These are the only established facts.

A. Wolves were reintroduced against wishes of many people who live in the area because scientists/environmental extremists decided it was a good idea. It wasn't hard to overcome the objections of those against it because there aren't too many people who live there, and the reintroduction was done on federal land, and they said they supported a limited managed population.

B. As predicted by those against the reintroduction, the wolves have had a negative impact on big game hunting and ranching. (clearly you're OK with that because these people are somehow bad)

C. There is no proof that reintroducing the wolves was the right call, and by extension, no proof that there was any need to reintroduce the wolf. 

It's really a sad state that so much of science has been compromised by a radical left environmental extremist cult. There is no objectivity among that group, and no amount of quoting Leopold changes that one lick. The point of science should not be to prove your opinion is correct, but to discover the truth.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Don't forget the money Jerry. "Scientists love money" They must have it in the form of grants for most of them to exist. Look where the money comes from....it will speak volumes.
Very good post!


----------



## Doug Moore (Nov 8, 2006)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> you are clueless


Can I get a AMEN.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Liberals love money. Other peoples money. You will find that 99% of the people in favor of wolves being introduced live nowhere near them and for the most part never will see one in the wild. They are enamored by how exotic they look on tv and in zoos. If you don't have to live with them you shouldn't get a say in it.

/Paul


----------



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> They are enamored by how exotic they look on tv and in zoos. If you don't have to live with them you shouldn't get a say in it.
> 
> /Paul


I hate to even get in this turmoil but this is just not the mind set that the country's conservation is based upon. We all have a say in it, an inherent right to hunt, fish, hike, backpack, combine these things and just look at the animals and hold hands if we want to. That is what makes this country what it was and still is. The underlying premise behind conservation debate inadvertently comes down to a quote that has carried over since 1905 from Gifford Pinchot (or Wilson officially but Pinchot wrote his own mission statement).

"Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run."

We would not have the National Forest of National Parks if only allowed a chosen few to choose what happens in their region. Seldom do any of us do the right thing, for the greatest good, for the longest period. It is human nature that our emotions cloud our judgement for the greater good. I want more elk and muleys for me to hunt, so i am glad they finally let it go to sound management of the populations. Had i not hunted too far south for wolf country this fall, i would have had a wolf tag in my pocket for my annual 3 weeks of DIY, public land fall hunting in the rockies...

But my liberal, hippy, American brothers and sisters in the urban areas have a right to drive out to Yellowstone in hopes of their glimpse of something wild and free from their car window....



That is what makes this country great, we all get a say, and we do not have to agree. I am sure glad Gifford Pinchot and Roosevelt had the gumption to stand against the tide.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

Ok guys, I have not seen anyone put forth evidence that supports that these wolves are substantially different. While I agree that it is fair to question the integrity of the harvest data (I have not looked at it myself) it at least supports the notion that they aren't different, including other information that was put forth which I don't care to repeat again. Where's the support for the argument that they are vastly different other than opinion?

Also, there have been lots of research to support the idea that wolves are a keystone species and contribute to the biodiversity of an area. Ok, doesn't 'prove' that they were needed but as I posted earlier they have seen some positive changes at least in the Yellowstone area.


----------



## Doug Moore (Nov 8, 2006)

GoldenSail;9324 Ok said:


> Really curious as to what these "positive" changes are?


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

*sigh* You must have missed what I posted earlier. Ok, here is the summary again.



> The reintroduction of wolves has reportedly increased biodiversity within Yellowstone National Park. Along with (and partly because of) an increase in new-growth vegetation, such as aspen and willow trees, which has resulted from the reduction in elk numbers. The aspen and willow were able to recover because not only was the elk population reduced because of predation due to the wolves, but they quit venturing as deep into thickets due to the fear of being attacked by wolves in an area of very low visibility. This process of top predators regulating the lower sections of the trophic pyramid was dubbed, "the ecology of fear" by William J. Ripple and Robert L. Bestcha [9] In addition to the restoration of vegetation several important species such as the beaver (which had also become extinct from the park) and red fox have also recovered, probably due to the wolves keeping coyote populations under control.[10]


By reducing the elk population in Yellowstone, aspen and willow were able to recover because they weren't getting 'decimated' by the elk population. This in turn made it possible for the beaver to return to the area (used to be extinct). They also reduced the coyote population, which allowed the red fox (and other species) to recover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> *sigh* You must have missed what I posted earlier. Ok, here is the summary again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your asking for evidence that the wolves they transplanted are 
"Substantially " different, there's no question that they are different, so I guess it depends on how much difference you consider to be substantial. You have to remember, most if not all studys are being aimed at proving transplanting these wolves is a great success, to my knowledge there isn't allot of ranchers or hunters with degrees in biology and grants setting out to study the ill effects of transplanting these non-native wolves.
The elk forage is coming on strong with no elk to eat it, but that is not the reason beavers have made a comeback, that's plain old management of over harvesting. If there was a organization willing to pay me my salary to go study the ill effects of transplanting non-native wolves in the Yellowstone area and the blockage of management of these wolves I would, and I know there is allot of information that's just swept under the carpet.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Don't forget, now with no elk the streams are now cleaner and a huge reduction in broken fences by elk. Also the job oppertunitys for goat herders to eat down the abundant underbrush.


----------



## justin300mag (May 28, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> *sigh* You must have missed what I posted earlier. Ok, here is the summary again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. How can an extinct species return to an area

2. Despite how much recovering the willows and aspens have done they were never struggling in the first place.

3. Beaver were in the park in great numbers long before the wolf reintroduction. How do I know? I saw them.

4. I guess I cant speak for the park on this one but here where I live, not terribly far from the park I used to shoot as many foxes as I did coyotes. Now I have not even seen a fox in about 5 years.

What everyone needs to understand is All these reports are filled with lies. The government has the deepest pockets and they get the info. they want people to hear because they have the deepest pockets. As for the sportsman we dont have the money to fight back. All we have is eyewitness accounts of what we see with our own eyes. We are competing with desk jockeys with phd's thtat are only making reports of what they are paid to report. Those of us that are out and see these things every day, we all know better but without the PHD in front of our name our opinions mean nothing and we are fighting a battle we will never win. It is impossible to express how frustrating it is seeing all these lies being told when we know they are not true because we have *seen* it.


----------



## justin300mag (May 28, 2010)

TPhillips said:


> Your asking for evidence that the wolves they transplanted are
> "Substantially " different, there's no question that they are different, so I guess it depends on how much difference you consider to be substantial. You have to remember, most if not all studys are being aimed at proving transplanting these wolves is a great success, to my knowledge there isn't allot of ranchers or hunters with degrees in biology and grants setting out to study the ill effects of transplanting these non-native wolves.
> The elk forage is coming on strong with no elk to eat it, but that is not the reason beavers have made a comeback, that's plain old management of over harvesting. If there was a organization willing to pay me my salary to go study the ill effects of transplanting non-native wolves in the Yellowstone area and the blockage of management of these wolves I would, and I know there is allot of information that's just swept under the carpet.


Thank you. Exactly you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

i just wanted to add that for all of you that say, "well these rachers don't say they are grazing their cattle on *public land*...." i say, what better use of public land than for me to have a big thick national park, free ranged, grass fed, ribeye that i paid $3.99 a pound for supper tonight. i eat beef several times a week and i should not have to compete with wolves for it. 

plus, i have enjoyed the elk i have eaten too!

as you can tell it's lunch time! interesting thread!


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> Regarding your list...
> 
> 1. Species - there you go again with your condescending attitude. It's getting old. The species sub-species argument is not relevant. What is relevant is if the wolves that were introduced are significantly different than the ones that were there before. It appears certain that they are different, and some of that difference is likely to have a genetic source. Regardless of the subspecies, there are geographical differences in populations - it really doesn't matter what you call it, but the differences absolutely do matter. Although not to you because you're all the way down in TX.
> 
> ...



The ad hominem attacks are getting a bit tiresome, but that does seem to be the preferred tactics of several here.

I addressed the species/subspecies question (again) because I have been accused (again) of changing my position vis a vi that particular issue and I haven't. I said from the beginning that as far as I was concerned subspecies is a non-issue (within some parameters).

I didn't "IMPLY" that there is proof that the introduced wolves are similar in size to the historic animals, I said outright that harvest data indicates that most of the animals harvested are very similar to the size range that was reported in historical records and I believe that I gave the citation. No, they didn't kill and measure EVERY animal out there (that would make some of you happy, but would sort of vitiate the entire exercise), but a 20% sample seems pretty substantial to me.

I'm not sure what of my supposed "implications" you believe to be "dishonest" but you are the one accusing everyone except those who make their livings in the area in question of having nefarious motives. You also refer to me and my "ilk" but no matter what you think, you don't know me or much about me. You need to define "extreme environmentalist" as I'm pretty sure that those who know me would not describe me that way (not sure it would bother me that much if they did though). Mind you, most of my friends tend to be hunters and fishermen, farmers and ranchers, but also include bird watchers , small business owners, and college professors (these groups have a huge overlap). Most of those folks would consider themselves to be environmentalists as any thinking (I know that you will take exception to the use of the term "thinking" but that is not an insult where I come from) hunter or rancher should (actually I think everyone should be environmentalists as we depend on a clean and healthy environment for our very existence). 

I certainly do have an agenda, and that is to leave some wild places in this world for your children and grand children even to the 10th or 100th generation to enjoy. (This will really give you ammunition) I say "your" children and grandchildren because my wife and I elected not to have kids (to many people in the world and I believe in leading by example). 

PETA and HSUS are no friends of mine, but go ahead and make your unfounded assumptions. (I'm more of a DU, QU type and have actually been on the advisory board of one of the top chapters of QU for a number of years). 

Of course I discount reports that come not first hand but second, third, or even fourth hand with no actual data to back them up, and I would point out that I wasn't the one who initially brought up "saying grace" as somehow relevant to the discussion. I don't think that "saying grace" makes people less reliable in reporting what they saw, I just don't think it makes them any more reliable either.

And in closing let me say that I certainly have no nefarious motives in supporting the (re) introduction of wolves into the lower 48. I support controlling the population to achieve a balance. I believe that cattlemen serve a positive role too (in fact my wife works for one of the largest ranches in the US and they are very good stewards of the land they own and have had a full time biologist, now an actual staff of wildlife professionals, on the payroll for many, many years). I want there to be some true wild places left in the lower 48 even if I never have the opportunity to enjoy them myself, and wolves contribute to that wildness. The public lands belong to all of us so I get a vote too.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

deadriver said:


> "Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run."
> 
> *We would not have the National Forest of National Parks if only allowed a chosen few to choose what happens in their region. Seldom do any of us do the right thing, for the greatest good, for the longest period. It is human nature that our emotions cloud our judgement for the greater good. *
> 
> ...


I really appreciated your take on this issue and your Pinchot quote, but also find your own words to be very eloquent.
Thanks for the post.


----------



## MarkinMissouri (Aug 29, 2010)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> If you don't have to live with them you shouldn't get a say in it.
> 
> /Paul


Hope that attitude doesn't catch on. I like to duck hunt but not many ducks live full time where I hunt.

I believe the states involved should have a major stake but not the only stake.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 16, 2010)

They said the beaver was extinct from the park. Whatever though. I don't base my decisions on opinion.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

deadriver said:


> I hate to even get in this turmoil but this is just not the mind set that the country's conservation is based upon. We all have a say in it, an inherent right to hunt, fish, hike, backpack, combine these things and just look at the animals and hold hands if we want to. That is what makes this country what it was and still is. The underlying premise behind conservation debate inadvertently comes down to a quote that has carried over since 1905 from Gifford Pinchot (or Wilson officially but Pinchot wrote his own mission statement).
> 
> "Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run."
> 
> ...


Well, thats easy enough to say. I live in a state overrun with southern californians that dominate the votes each year that impacts true Oregonian's lives. So while they have a right to vote how they want, I would prefer they stay home and ruin their own home state. How many wolves are running around your backyard eating your livestock?

/Paul


----------



## BWCA Labs Margo Penke (Jan 20, 2010)

Watched the entire movie and thought it was a real good production.
I am now sharing it with family and friends.
I really feel for the people in the state of Montana whose lives have been so adversely effected by the wolves.
Personally, for us, so far, it's been compatible living among wolf packs.
We do not have much livestock in our area. Although our kids have recently purchased 75 acres, with established cleared land...the old homestead qualifies as an historic landmark; and they plan on making this their new home and hobby farm. Hope that goes well for them regarding our wolf population.
I have a new project...this movie made me think of our Moose population; I have been hearing it is way down...going to go research that now.
To folks considering I suggest you watch this movie...all the way through...and keep an open mind.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

HPL said:


> I don't think that "saying grace" makes people less reliable in reporting what they saw, I just don't think it makes them any more reliable either.


5 generations of ranching on the same land and homesteading a town speak volumes to me but, you have your headphones turned off in favor of a nice story that fits into a political agenda.


----------



## duckkiller (Jan 18, 2012)

A good education is wasted for some folks when common sense is all you need on this issue.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Hpl, you've gotten first hand accounts of what's happening, from volunteer conservationist's, but you are only believing the stories funded by your peta freinds. With your one sided, unreasonable views i think most of us discount your opinion on the matter of wolves as no more relevant than the blatant lies repeatedly told by all the pro wolf organizations.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

The farmers and ranchers and hunters that live in this area have the final say about the wolves. We, not you in Texas, will decide to live with them or not. Happy hunting


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

How many of you watched the video posted by Mossduck? Here is the link.

http://video.wpt2.org/video/1630672563/

Many might find it's take interesting as it includes interviews with folks living successfully in wolf territory.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

TPhillips said:


> The farmers and ranchers and hunters that live in this area have the final say about the wolves. We, not you in Texas, will decide to live with them or not. Happy hunting


Well, you may think that, but the people of the US will actually have the final say and so far it looks like they want there to be wolves in YOUR neighborhood. BOOOAH HAHAHAHAH!!!


It's been a blast!!

HPL


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Actually unless you buy a hunting license in those states your not funding any of it, the part where they've been federally delisted, and now one state has already deemed them the same as coyotes, shoot on site as many as you want in most the state, not to mention 10-40j where you can shoot them if their in your livestock. They are spreading like wildfire but the locals could wipe them out just as they did the first time if they wanted to.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

TPhillips said:


> Actually unless you buy a hunting license in those states your not funding any of it, the part where they've been federally delisted, and now one state has already deemed them the same as coyotes, shoot on site as many as you want in most the state, not to mention 10-40j where you can shoot them if their in your livestock. They are spreading like wildfire but the locals could wipe them out just as they did the first time if they wanted to.


Not completely accurate as I read it. If populations drop below certain minimums, they will simply be re-listed, getting those nasty feds back in YOUR business.

BooAh HaHaHa!!


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

HPL those folks in that video are hobby farmers not ranchers those folks wouldn't even be able to survive out west themselves let alone have a flock of sheep or cattle. I laughed my butt off about that stuff. If that is what main stream americans think ranching is we are doomed to starve already. I watched the movie Food Inc. pretty interesting movie. Makes me like my wild game even better.


----------



## Doug Moore (Nov 8, 2006)

HPL said:


> Not completely accurate as I read it.


That is the problem with 99% of the gibberish you post. The only knowledge you have with this issue is what Google tells you. Not saying I know a lot about it but a old college buddy of mine is a guide in Wyoming/Montana. Yes his opinion is biased but the fact remains there are issues which are not being handled accordingly.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

You have allot to learn my friend.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

HPL said:


> Not completely accurate as I read it. If populations drop below certain minimums, they will simply be re-listed, getting those nasty feds back in YOUR business.
> 
> BooAh HaHaHa!!


Listed or not listed, some critters die of natural causes. It's natures law. They piss off a rancher and well, nature kicks in

/Paul


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> They are spreading like wildfire but the locals could wipe them out just as they did the first time if they wanted to.
> __________________


You can wipe them out locally,,,but the wolf is here to stay .
They will always have Jellystone and the Idaho Wilderness. ( there are no roads or trails and if you do hike in you have to carry out your own poop,,,thats enough to keep me home) You can't hunt in Jellystone and the wilderness area is just to remote for the average hunter to do much damage to the population. The initial proposal was for Jellystone and the IW to be the home for the wolf ,,,not under someones porch. I was local to the subject living 100 miles south of Jellystone ( thats local for a western state) so it was on the news alot back then. HPL and everyone else can have their cake and eat it to ,,if we just let people pull off the side of the road and make sport. Just as long as your not shooting across the road when traffic is coming.
This way everyone is happy and we can return to the original proposal.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2011/07/05/state-s-fourth-wolf-pack-identified-in-teanaway-area

This article is interesting. Because of reports by hunters posting on our local hunting washington chat room, the conservation group decided to check out the Teannaway Pack and then went out and looked for it. Guess what happened, it was hunters who first saw and reported them, not biologists or conservationalists.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Maybe adopting a wolf might be a good idea for a few folks? You know, kind of like adopting a starving kid except this is a wolf in a pen... Make sure it gets an education, clean water, fresh roadkill...Put the picture in the backyard so it's like living with a wolf? 

http://www.everythingwolf.com/shop/productslist.aspx?CategoryID=31


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Maybe adopting a wolf might be a good idea for a few folks? You know, kind of like adopting a starving kid except this is a wolf in a pen... Make sure it gets an education, clean water, fresh roadkill...Put the picture in the backyard so it's like living with a wolf?
> 
> http://www.everythingwolf.com/shop/productslist.aspx?CategoryID=31


Id like to get one, only for real, a hybrid. Name her bait, and go on allot of camping trips, with my night shooting stuff.


----------



## TPhillips (Dec 16, 2010)

Boy I bet the Yakima herd is sitting ducks at oak creek next winter, and the public can witness the slaughter, wonder if they'll let the tribe shoot whatever they want then too?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Gotta be tough to play middle school football in Kalispell, MT... from a few days ago..

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/30547854/detail.html?hpt=us_bn7


----------



## charly_t (Feb 11, 2009)

For those who are still interested in the wolf topic. A book that I just bought has a chapter that is interesting about wolves. "Hunting The Grisly And Other Sketches" by Theodore Roosevelt. What the wolves were eating, how big some were etc. I bought the book for the one sketch about what may have been a "Bigfoot" encounter. Wildlife sketches are very interesting in it so far 
but I am not reading front to back just what jumps out at me. I already have another Theodore Roosevelt book almost finished so I can't give full attention to the new one yet


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/17/world/europe/sweden-zookeeper-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Apparently raising them from pups doesn't help keep them from killing you...

/Paul


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/17/world/europe/sweden-zookeeper-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
> 
> Apparently raising them from pups doesn't help keep them from killing you...
> 
> /Paul



I believe the expression is.........Well duh...... Folks need to remember that wild animals are WILD animals even if hand raised. I ended up shooting one of my research animals (javalinas) as it grabbed my leg and started to shake it (fortunately I was wearing snake leggings as I always did when in the pen with my animals). She was hand raised, bottle fed, and had been around lots of folks, but one day, whamo!! I actually shot her on the second day that she attacked. The first time I had an escape route but the second time I didn't. Thank heavens I was standing up and not down on all fours crawling through the brush.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Hoping there are no wolves here! We are camping (trailer, not real camping;-)) just a few miles away from the TSRC grounds in Elk Park up on forest service land. We plan on keeping the dogs on the truck over night anyway.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

2tall said:


> Hoping there are no wolves here! We are camping (trailer, not real camping;-)) just a few miles away from the TSRC grounds in Elk Park up on forest service land. We plan on keeping the dogs on the truck over night anyway.



if you are in Montana and there are elk, then the wolves are there...count on it


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> if you are in Montana and there are elk, then the wolves are there...count on it


The chew through camper doors and eat aluminum boxes like cardboard....


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Paul, you do realize that I had your name in my will until this comment? ;-)


----------

