Wolf news
 

From the Missoulian, Oct 26, 2005
Biologists that know more than me and probablymost forum members say wolves are a problem for elk, and the system around Yellowstone is unnatural. The wolves that were introduced are not the native wolf. There are certainly more than 100 in each neighboring state, and the population isgrowing exponentially (like nature does). Other biologists, who also know more than me, even pro hunting ones, say its just a new balance and elk will merely change their habits.

The numbers are not entirely indicative because the calves are the ones being killed. It is future elk that are dwindling, not adults.

Wolves are livestock and game killing varmints and should be treated as such.I live near and hunt the Yellowstone ecosystem. Statewide averages do not apply here. It is not a privilege to see elk eating varmints when hunting elk.

Interesting news, no matter where you reside on this issue . . . .

Montana gains control of its wolves
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian






Proclaiming it both a biological and a political success story, Interior Secretary Gale Norton on Monday announced plans to turn over the management of Montana's booming population of gray wolves to Montanans.

In the 10 years since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone National Park and the central Idaho wilderness, wolf numbers have grown "far more quickly than anyone ever predicted," Norton said.






[align=center][/align]"We have seen a species recover," she said. "That's one success story. But so is the cooperation we've seen between state and federal governments."

About 850 wolves now inhabit Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, said Ed Bangs, the federal government's wolf recovery coordinator. Of those, about 700 animals are in the Yellowstone ecosystem and central Idaho.

Under the rule announced Monday, the states of Montana and Idaho - and Indian tribes in those states - can assume virtually all responsibility for wolf management, if they have Fish and Wildlife Service-approved wolf management plans.

Montana and Idaho already have such plans, so will take over most wolf-management duties within the next few months.

The Nez Perce Tribe of central Idaho has also submitted a management plan for federal review.

Wyoming has been the holdout, refusing to write a plan that would maintain a healthy population of wolves in that state.

In Montana, gray wolf program coordinator Carolyn Seim said Monday's announcement was "very welcome news."

"We do believe this is a positive step forward," Seim said. "We've worked very hard to put a plan together, and we feel this rule rewards our efforts as an agency - and the efforts of the people of Montana."

Already, the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has taken the lead in managing wolves in northwestern Montana, where the species is protected as threatened.

The new rule affects those wolves considered "experimental, nonessential" animals by the federal government when they were released into Yellowstone Park and the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in January 1995.

The dividing line between "threatened" wolves and those considered "nonessential" is

Interstate 90.

With the new rule, Seim said Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks will take the lead on wolf management statewide.

"We feel like we are ready to go," she said. "And we feel like we have a public that supports state-led wolf management."

In Idaho, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne hailed the change in a telephone news conference with reporters.

The objective, he said, "is an atmosphere and an environment that allows the species to do well."

"This is a tremendous step forward for the state of Idaho," Kempthorne said. "The old rule was written to protect 25 to 50 wolves. Now we have over 500 wolves; the dynamics have changed, so the management also must change."

Besides delivering more authority to the states, the new rule also gives private landowners greater flexibility in dealing with "problem" wolves.

The regulation provides that:

Wolves attacking livestock, dogs or livestock-herding animals on private land can be killed by landowners without prior written approval.

Wolves attacking livestock and livestock-herding or livestock-guarding animals on public grazing allotments can be killed by grazing permitees, guides or outfitters, and on ceded lands by tribal members without written approval.

Wolves causing unacceptable impacts to wildlife populations, such as herds of deer and elk, can be killed by state or tribal agencies - but only after the states or tribes complete science-based analyses that have been subjected to public and peer review, and have been approved by the federal government.

States can also issue written authorization to landowners or grazing permitees to control wolves that consistently pose a threat to their livestock.

Bangs, at the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the new rules "will tend to keep wolves from spreading out into other areas."

"Right now, all the good wolf habitat in Idaho and the greater Yellowstone area is filled with wolves," Bangs said. "This won't change population densities in those areas much at all. But it will tend to keep the population within the primary recovery areas."

And it will be easier to kill wolves, he said. "Under the old rule, a wolf had to have its teeth in the livestock for a rancher to shoot. Under the new rule, it has to be a foot away, chasing them. It's a small difference, but a significant one."

Seim, however, said the state of Montana has no intention of "just going out there and eliminating wolves."

"No," she said. "That's not what we are about."

"Our plan works to integrate wolves into the human and the natural landscape," Seim said. "It works to find ways to have wolves fit in."

The key difference with state management, she said, will be the closer proximity of wolf managers to wolf populations.

"We'll have people living in these communities, working closely with landowners," she said. "That's a big difference from my perspective. It allows the state agency to be very responsive."

Money continues to be a concern for state wildlife managers, Seim said. A fully implemented wolf management program would cost about $900,000 a year - in Montana alone.

But the federal government is working to give the state the needed funds, and Montana's program will gradually increase as the money increases, according to Seim.

Montana is disappointed that wolves will remain on the Endangered Species List - and will remain there until Wyoming adopts a wolf-management plan, Seim added. "We would prefer that today's announcement was the delisting announcement, but we still see it as a positive step."

Not everyone was enthused by Norton's decision, including Defenders of Wildlife - one of the national conservation groups that championed wolf reintroduction.

"While Defenders of Wildlife supports strong and active state participation in managing wolves, it is essential that such management does not erase or compromise the incredible achievements made under the reintroduction program to date," said Nina Fascione, the group's vice president of field conservation.

"The new rule potentially jeopardizes wolf recovery efforts just as they were beginning to show some success," she said.

Said Suzanne Stone, the group's Rocky Mountain field representative, "After more than a century of extermination efforts in the West, and with illegal wolf killing on the rise, it is irresponsible to severely loosen restrictions on killing wolves."

The new rule takes effect in Montana and Idaho in 30 days.

RE: Wolf news
 

Actually, there was a paper done about 2 years ago that made a pretty convincing case for the theory that the absence of wolves from Yellowstone was actually slowly degrading that ecosystem in a type of trophic cascade. So, please don't state that biologists are on your side because we aren't. At least the responsible ones are not. I'm sure you can find some malcontents that wish to twist data to the anti-wolf cause.

And as far as these wolves "not the native wolf" is incorrect. They are the same species(Canislupus)and indeed the same subspecies (Canis lupus lycaon). You can make the case that their DNA is not 100% the same but that would such a case of splitting hairs it would be laughed at within the scientific community, which it is.

But of course this has all been brought forward before in other threads that stretched dozens of pages so there is no need to open up this can of worms again.

Trying to have an intellectually responsible debate about wolves in this forum is pretty much the same as ramming a brick wall repeatedly.

RE: Wolf news
 

Are you seriously pro-wolf... and wait you live in Idaho too? Wow, i am speechless.

By the way, i walked accross a wolf kill this weekend in a area that f&g's biologists refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are wolves in the area. The animal was slashed into and then left to die.... yeah you just got to love those little cute, friendly wolves.

RE: Wolf news
 

IMO There sure seems to be alot of pro-wolf protectors in this hunting forum. The everyday hunter knows that there's "NO" good use for a wolf. Especially transplanted from another area and to top it off "protected". I believe a hunter should have every right to put food on his table. Wolves as stated in many previous posts and threads seem to kill for the thrill. Very close comparison to a poacher that kills and leaves a trophy to rot.

I'm not saying all wolves should be eliminated, but clearly should be controlled. Fine$$$ a poacher!! Let the wolves thrill kill?? Something definately needs to change. I don't want to open a box of worms here, so those who disagree please remember this isjust my opinion.

RE: Wolf news
 

Goodpostjones123. Since Itook the job in Wyoming, I have been out of the loop. I try to keep up on all of the latest wolf news.
Too bad Montana will nothire me to manage there wolf program? I could save tax paying montana residents 800,000 a year.:D

Good luck hunting,

WolfKiller

RE: Wolf news
 

Let me tell you guys something.. ANY Wolf that walks past me will have the .35 Whelen blazing towards his vitals. I am positive there are none in NY where I hunt but if there were it would be a goner for sure. You guys should be dropping them at every sighting. They are going to be the downfall of your great western hunting as you know it. soon you will be hunting grizzly's and wolves only.

RE: Wolf news
 

No I'm not pro-wolf. Nor am I anti-wolf. I'm pro-truth, that is why I'm in science. Attitudes like the one's the anti-wolf people have here are the reason why they will never get what they desire.

There is so much misinformation and politcally charged BS coming from both sides, it's important to look at the research to get an idea of what the real long term effects of wolves will be. (Yes I know what you'll say to that: "Scientists with an agenda blah blah blah, egomaniac academics in Ivory Towers blah blah blah" well when it gets to that stage of ignorance, the anti-wolfers have just lost any chance at being able to mounta credible opposition.)

Would you feel different if you found a calf that waspartially eaten by a black bear? Or is that ok because it wasn't a wolf?

I'm not trying to take a side, I'm trying to interject some factual information and some reason into what is otherwise a purely emotional debate with little or no logic behind the positions ofeither side.

The good thing is, as soon as Wyoming gets their act together and produces an acceptable management plan, then the wolves can be delisted and actively managed by the state wildlife agencies. Which means TAGS!!heheh. :D

Oh andeveryone always says: "They won't admit that there is wolves there" etc etc. Well, officially no they won't. Becausethey don't have collared wolves in every packanymore like they did in previous years. So, now there are many new packs that theya) don't know exist or b)don'thave official documentation of them(like radio collar locations). So they aren't just going to go saying stuff off the cuff about a sensative subject like this.

So it's nothing to get all worked up over. Ifyou want to be angry about something, be angry at Wyoming Fish andGame. They can't get their act together so that the states can start actively managing their wolf population.

But the biggest problem is when we, as hunters, start foaming at the mouth and making any kind of cooperation impossible and the dissemination of factual information very difficult.

RE: Wolf news
 

what happened to this post?
take my advise. shoot all wolves and you will have more animals to hunt.. If you cannot shoot them, feed them carcases with rat poison

RE: Wolf news
 

Thanks for making my point for me.....repeatedly lol. [8D]

RE: Wolf news
 

Hi jones123

I find all this concern from hunters over the fact that a few wolves are running around a bit odd. I live in BC and was raised in Alberta which i believe was the source of the wolf population in yellowstone.
I believe the Montana biologists were looking for wolves that in fact were use to hunting elk so Alberta wolves. were relocated instead of say Alaska wolves.Since then many more wolves have found their way into Idaho all by them selves through the Flathead River Valley in southern BC.
I assure you there is still plenty of elk in Alberta even though the wolf population is much higher than you have stateside.
In Northern BC, we have mountains with caribou, moose, elk, deer, sheep, goats,black/grizzly bears and WOLVESall gettin along togetherjust fine. Seems to be room for everyone and I have taken several 6 point elk in 2 years.
As a trophy, a big wolf hunted fair chase is second to none, certainly tougher than takin an elk.
When I use to work in the arctic I saw that without wolves killing and in fact even overkilling caribou, the barren ground grizzlies were probably unlikely to survive the first month of spring. The only food available to them was old wolf kills left on the ice months earlier. Both the caribou and the wolves were by this time, hundreds of miles away. The wolverine was another beneficiary of this behavior.
I hope given more time, montana hunters can declare a truce just like those of us who cant immagine not sharing our hunting grounds with the wolf.
Happy Hunting

RE: Wolf news
 

It’s great to get a response from a Biologist that knows his stuff. Now lets hear from the ranchers in the area to which the wolf was reintroduced. I would like to hear their side of the story. Seems few biologists will acknowledge the negatives effects on the residents and ranchers property with this reintroduction.

RE: Wolf news
 

Not sure what you mean, if you're talking to me. I didn't suggest anyone was on "my side". I personally know a Montana FWP biologist who is an avid hunter whowill not admit that wolves will be a problem. That is what I meant by that statement. But that same person admits that the calf:cow ratio is going down quickly. I don't have any numbers to back up the term "quickly".

I had heard that the timber wolf used to repopulate is not from here. That point was made in response to naturalists that believe nature should be untouched, yet there was an unnatural wolf introduced. Granted, that may be all BS, I wouldn't know. There is plenty of emotion around the subject. You only need a few trips to Gardiner, MT to see that.

RE: Wolf news
 

Thanks for the response tangozulu. I hope you're right.

The travesty is that two whole industries/ways of life(livestock and hunting) grow around a certain set of conditions, then the feds decide they can just change the operating conditions with no allowance to the people who have depended on the industries and traditions for generations. All while ignoring their arguments as uninformed or selfish.

Sure, I am selfish about my elk hunting, but you can't tell me I am more selfish than the backpacker or naturalist who wants to see the wolves for his own pleasure.

I am looking forward to wolf tags. We have bear tags and unlimited coyote killing, and they are doing fine.

RE: Wolf news
 

I have seen first hand the damage that the Wolf Packs are doing in Idaho. And you are crazy if you think they are only in Central Idaho.. I consider myself as a ethical hunter and person for that matter. However, I will shoot a wolf on sight. My bow huntingtrip last Sept. was in a place called Council. I have hunted there for 15 years. Never seen a wolf once... Not to say they were not already there. I just never saw them. This year we saw 14 WOLVES IN 7 DAYS!!!!!!
I was furious. Because I wasn't seeing the game thatI normally see. i hadn't hunted up there in two years. i have been away in the Military. It was appaling to see the loss in Elk numbers. I only saw a couple calves...
I HATE THE NUMBERS OF WOLVES IN IDAHO NOW!!!
That's all I have to say about that!

RE: Wolf news
 

We do acknowledge the negatives. However, we would be more likely to actually talk about the negatives if the numbers we are getting were anything remotely alarming.

The last numbers I saw (which was last year) was so rediculously low that the thought almost completely left my mind.

There was several studies done on this exact issue in Minnesota. The researchers found that the livestock losses were completely negligible (<1% IIRC), and were generally not just the products ofpredation but here were actually other factors involved like improper carcass disposal by ranchers, among other things.

Now I'm not saying that a few calves lost can't make a difference for a rancher but I think considering the circumstances, the losses realized by the industry are very, very light. Not to mention the reimbursment programs that pay for confirmed and even probable losses.

Just for comparison: 17,000sheep were lost to coyotes in 2003. Since 1995 losses to wolves have averaged 16 cattle and 68 sheep in the Greater Yellowstone area. These losses, at least to me, are not significant.

Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating on livestock.

I guess my question would be: Wolves are not going anywhere, so what else needs to be done? I think just about anything that the rest of society can tolerate has already been implemented in terms of protecting ranchers. Except foractivemanagement via hunting and trapping which is only a couple years down the road.

RE: Wolf news
 

Are you suuuuuure you want to take that blanket position on the non-hair splittingefficacyfor all your scientific brethern regarding what is and what isn't "close enough" in regard to DNA when it comes to Species, Sub-speciesand the issue of achieving "endangerment?"
================================

Also, nice tactic.... jumping in the thread early, declaring your view the ultimate truth, attempt to undercut any competition with one slash, pokeyour opponentsin the eye, and then turn around and imply there is no sense in going any further.... don't need any long hard fought threads, it's all been covered before, you've decided you've already won, so we should get used to it..... I don't think so....

So typical,
So systemic in your community,
Almost a sense of royal entitlement and arrogance.
=================================

I predict these same folks here are gonnaargue your arseto a standstill.... again.

RE: Wolf news
 

The cow:calf ratio is also going down here in Idaho. The thing people fail to mention is that it's been on the decline since about 1985. Wolves didn't have any impact on elk herds in the beginning. The main culprits of this long term slide were actually fifty years of almost total fire suppression and sharp decline in timber harvest since the 80's. These two factors magnified the impact of predation on elk and the introduction of wolves increased that magnification.

The main predator component of low cow:calf ratios here (and I'm assuming in similar habitats such as MT) is actually black bears, not wolves. Wolves certainly have an impact now, but my point is, this decline in the elk population was set up by other factors before wolf reintroduction was even thought of. Based on the research I have read, the main predator culprits up to that point were black bears, cougars and to a small extent golden eagles. With black bears having a devastating impactat calving time.

The Clinton roadless bill actually did more to hurt elk herds than wolf reintroduction in my opinion.

RE: Wolf news
 

Hi Elk Kamp
100 years ago some biologists had identifird about 50 different subspieces of grizzly bears from California to Alaska.

This included not only the Brown Bears of Alaska but also such pedigrees as a "bald face" and "silvertip" etc. We have since sanely decided that this was a bit extreme. The former wolf populationfrom Yellowstone, I am sure had a continuous link to those now used to repopulate the former range.
If we were to use this argument about inappropriate dna against re-introducing wolves back into the western US, then please return the hundreds of Bighorn and CaliforniaBighorns Sheep that Canada donated to the US for the same purpose.
Happy Hunting

RE: Wolf news
 

I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you explain it a little more clearly? I'm pretty familiar with the ESA listing laws and regulations and I'm sure I can cover any concerns you may have.

This isn't about winning orlosing. No one wins and no one loses. I'm only trying to lendsome reason to what is almost a purely emotional debate. I just happen to end up repeating myself because there a few basic factswhich prettyhandily sum up the situation.I don't see the point in opening thiswhole thing upanymore frankly. There hasn't been much new information that would change what has already been argued for the pastyear on this forum.

Every time a logical point is made it's met with anger and mud slinging instead of real science supporting your position. This is what I mean by "intellectually resonsible debate". Your post makes it apparent that your not capable of such a debate because instead ofrefuting my pointsusing some sort of knowledge, your calling me arrogant and accusing me of hoodwinking people who you obviously consider gullible, that is being intellectually irresponsible and that is why the anti-wolfers (and to some extent the prowolfers) will never mount an effective opposition. Just ask the Democratic party how effective spewing vitriolic nonesense is. ;)

RE: Wolf news
 

But they're not using it in many cases. Ranchers have had to require a lot of proof and have had to wait, only to have the officer merely re-locate the wolf - if he finds it. And to wait until the kill - are any wolves not going to eat animals?

Many Ranchers are taking things into their own hands now, after several years of many of them giving the officers a chance.

RE: Wolf news
 

Tell the rancher that losses livestock that his loss is negligible and you will see just how emotional this can become.

How does a study done in minnesota have anything to do with Idaho? I think you would agree that the ecosystems are quite different. Am I mistaken or did Minnesota recently stock elk, and mountains?I think that it would be commonly accepted that the method of raising livestock in minnesota differs greatlyfrom those in mountainous regions. So I don't see the corelation.

I trust the word of hunters more than "scientist". I'm sorry but in my experience the former are more honest. Before you call me an imbecile let me inform you that I have a bachelor's degree in Animal Science, before going to graduate school in business. I seen enough to know that in science much like Accounting you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to. You and I both know that is true.Fish and game scientists always want to discount the information that Hunters can provide.I suppose they have an agenda and if the data doesn't suit them it is considered false.

For years in my home state of missouri the department of conservation discounted reports of mountain lions. They even went as far as to call videos,of cats, fakes. Now they are doing the same with Bear. I can assure you that we have both Lions, and bears in missouribecause I've seen them first hand. Now, go ask a biologist and there is no telling what kind of answer you will get.

I'm not saying that the wolves should be wiped out, nor that the wolves should beprotected. Somewhere, sometime we have to find a common ground.

RE: Wolf news
 

As far as I know, ranchers have always been allowed to kill any wolf they see attacking thier livestock. Wolves are killed up here on a pretty regular basis and they are NOT relocated. In fact I've never heard of a wolf that attacked livestock being relocated. Could you please let me know your source for that?

RE: Wolf news
 

The Minnesota study was the closest example I couldthink of and there are many similarities as well asa fewdifferences. The general rule in research is you go with the best thing you have at the time.It's a hard and fast comparison but it works.That is the best studywe have so far thatdocuments some of the cause and effect of wolfpredation on livestock.

It's easy for you to disregard the findings of the study because it doesn't suit your purpose. That's pretty typical and understandable.

A bachelors in animal scienceunfortunately does notmake you a researcher. Your logic skills must be somewhat lacking if you truely believe that every researcher has an agenda and is out to screw the landowners/ranchers. Your comments lead me to believe that you have no experience in peer-reviewed research and really don't know what goes on during the process of publishing a scientificarticle. If this is true then I can see why you would feel that way. It's a shame really because it's somewhat the heart of the problem between scientists and the rest of the public. If your just going to stick your head in the sand and say "I believe what I believe and nothing (certainly not science) can change my mind" then your doomed to ignorance and anger at everything around you that you do not understand.

You can not believe science that is your choice. But it's in your best interests to at least read and keep up on the science behind issues like this, because the science is what shapes public policy and public policy is what effects the landowners/ranchers.

RE: Wolf news
 

It's easy for you to disregard the findings of the study because it doesn't suit your purpose. That's pretty typical and understandable.


[/quote]
that isexactly my point sir. If you think that thenon scientists are the only ones who disregard crucial Information then you sir are the ignorant.


Never claimed to be. As a matter of fact I simply stated that to try and avoid the name calling. But it was unsuccessful.

Funny how you want an itelligent coversation at one point then regress to name calling later.

I never said that either. I simply said that there are those who have an agenda. I think you know I'm correct. And if you think that some researchers don't disregard information that contradicts there agenda, then you are the one with his head in the sand.

The key term is Peer. I seen some "research" done for the Sierra club,Peta, Humane society, etc. They where peer reviewed and they where total garbage.

That is very true. A degree doesn't make you an expert. Its human nature to think that your stand on issue is right and others that disagree are totally wrong. As a scientist you should know that there are no absolutes. Your arrogance is palpable!

My personal feelings on the wolf issue is that theyhave just as much right to be here as us. There are too many interests involved to say that the wolf should be allowed to go unmanaged. There has to be a middle ground where the wolves can be controlled to the point where there is a sustainable population with as little detrimentas possible to wildlife, livestock, and humans.

RE: Wolf news
 

BrutalAttack, thanks man! You're speaking my language. I've been making many of your same points for a while now. (I made the one on the degradation of Idaho's elk habitat long ago. I studied under James Peak at the U. of Idaho, and back in the '70s he wrote his first paper predicting a coming decline in ID elk numbers. Wolves weren't even a gleam in a tree hugger's eye back then.) It's like throwing rocks in a pond trying to splash out all the water, it just makes no impact at all.

I live in the Bitterroot valley where we have record elk numbers and record calf:cow ratios. We also have wolves running around all over the place. You walk in to the local cafes, and the talk is all about how the wolves are wiping the elk out here. There's just a total disconnect between reality and people's perception. I recently had a set-to with a family friend who, in his own words, "haven't picked up my bow all season, haven't even bothered to go out". Yet this guy can tell me, who is out in the woods almost literally all the time, that me and the Fish and Game don't know anything. The elk are on the path to extinction.

I recently saw some of these wolves that everybody knows just kills stuff and leaves it lie. These wolves were in the middle of an elk haven, and I interrupted them in mid-attack on a cow elk. (True story - one I'll tell in full someday.) Anyhow, I got a really good look at these ravenous killers. Their body frames were comparable to German Shepherds, but they were carrying about 10-20 lbs. less body weight than a domestic dog would be packing. They looked lean as hell, basically healthy but VERY lean. Now, if these things run around killing things and leaving them lie, then we have a new line of bull for the antiwolf slobber-slinging brigade. WOLVES ARE STUPID! They ought to at least eat enough of all their abundant kills to not look like anorexic runway models.

I'll say again, I think the key is habitat. Predators are seconday. Give'em good habitat and they will thrive. We're coming off the fires of 2000 here, and the elk are fat, happy, and abundant.

RE: Wolf news
 

As this debate continues,I honestly can see both sides of the argument. I am not pro-wolf by any means, but I am also not anti-wolf. I've lived in Idaho most of my life. I DID NOT support the wolf re-introduction because I felt it was a poor plan promoted by atreehugger agenda. I saw my first wolf5 years ago following a sheep herd. Since then I have seen 5 more and heard them several times.I listen to hunters and ranchers reports about the "kill happy" wolf packs, but haven't witnessed it first hand. I've talked to a sheepherder who spent many a sleepless night defending his herd against a nearby wolf pack. I know that much of the predation control on domestic animal attackshas been very reactive and absolutely lacking in proactivity. [/align][/align]Thearticle posted on this thread stated that there are over 800 wolves in Montana & Idaho, with 700 in Idaho alone.Mostconcentrated inthe Yellowstone and Central Idaho area. Do you know what avast area that is?? I've talked to hunters thatreport wolf sightings fromthe Salmon, Challis & Mackay area, thru Sun Valley,around Atlanta, up thru McCall & Council, up to Riggins, and around Elk City. This is a VAST area. I also believe the 700 count is very low. More than likely over 1000 to 1500or more.[/align][/align]You also have to think about thenumbers generated each year from a litter.Ifout of 700Idaho wolves 1/4 are breeding females, that's 125 females.Each female has 4 pups, that'san additional 500 new wolves. Do the math and you see how this population will escalate exponentially. [/align][/align]An Idaho Fish and Game report last year stated that since the re-introduction of the wolves the elk herds in Idaho have declined by 30%. I'm sure there are many other environmental issues that caused this reduction, but with the escalating wolf population yousimply cannot rule out this coincidence.[/align][/align]We here in Idaho are at a point of "too little to late". There is absolutely no reason these wolves should be a protected species here, and I am glad that State control is at hand. Unfortunately it is coming in a bit late, and once again reactive. It seems it has forced many ethical hunters to take the illegal approach of shoot, shovel, and shut up to try to curb the wolf population.[/align][/align]Money always seems to be an issue as well. Here is an idea... Start offering wolf tags! What better way to generate needed money than toopen up controlled hunt wolf tags.I read the post from our Canadian brothers about how they don't see the problem. Well, that's because you get to hunt wolves under your game management plans. We Idaho hunters can't touch a wolf without the serious financial repercussions it will create. You make a wolf tag, and you will generate more money in one season than all the imposed fines already given out for illegal wolf killings combined.[/align][/align]Just my opinion, and like buttholes, everyone's got one....[/align]

RE: Wolf news
 

That's exactly right. I mean, it baffles me that anyone could have tunnel vision that severe. You have to see the whole picture, especially where complex predator-prey relationships are concerned. We can only wish these issues wereas black and white as many people seem to believe.

Jim Peek is a good friend of mine and I also studied under him. He was way ahead of his time in terms of Idaho elk. I doubt there is anyone in the country that knows as much or has contributed as much to ungulate research, elk in particular.

RE: Wolf news
 

That's possible but again your paranoid. Peer reviewed articles have to pass extremely rigorous review before they are published. For the most part they are solid science. Are there some obviously biased studies out there?Sure. But notas many as the "Ivory Tower" haters would like the public to believe.

I'm not advocating an absolute. Quite the opposite. I'm the one interjecting in an attempt to balance the fanaticism of the anti-wolf side. It's the anti-wolf side that would have us believe that it's a black and white issue. To them it seems all natural resources are tagged with a "evil" or "good" moniker. As we all know, few things in the universe above the atomic level are binary, and natural resource issues are no exeception.

Of course I'm going to debate hard and attempt to sway people to what I feel is true, such is the purpose of debate in case you've forgotten.

That'smy point. Personal feelings have no place in seeking the truth. It only invites bias, subjectivity while at the same time undermining any credible points that might be made. This is why the antiwolf argument falls flat.

There is a middle ground and as with almost every scientific foray, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The prowolfers don't have it, and the antiwolfers don't have it. The only people who are even moderately inclined to be objective is scientists.

I have to say though that the quality of posts on this topic has gone up 100% since that last time this can of worms was opened.

RE: Wolf news
 

Wolves are definently gonna be a big problem for the elk populations. Not only are they some of the most wasteful and cruel predetors the absence of the wolves for so long has had the elk and other game animals forget how to protect themselves and survive with wolves. They have become an unhealthy and unethical change to the game populations in most of the areas of reintroduction. Ive got a poll on what people think the effect of the reintroduction will do to the Northern Yellowstone elk herds on my site at www.freewebs.com/smokechaser if anyone wants to vote on it.

RE: Wolf news
 

My source on that tale isn't all that solid. I know one rancher quite well, who basically gives me the connection amongothers. So the story comes to mesecond hand.

The relocation was the story going through thecommunity last season.The ranchers are saying "We've given thisa chance for years.We're trying to act by the book. Butthe officialsare not acting fast or aggressively enough, so it's time we take care of the problem ourselves"

I'm not the one in the know, just an interested hunter, but I don't believe any ranchers are allowed to shoot wolves. I haven't heard of any telling me that, and it doesn't sound like something the feds would allow. I mean, I would like it if they did, but it's way out of character for the feds totrust lowly citizens with that decision. How would a rancher prove his stock was being preyed upon? That he didn't have somebody else do the shooting? That it was on his ranch? What is the definition of a ranch or rancher?

My other source is local news. Now and then I hear about feds or state killing wolves, but I do not believe they're allowing ranchers to kill.

RE: Wolf news
 

Well I'm almost sure that was a stipulation of the reintroduction. I don't have a source off hand but I'll check my contactin Wildlife Services and see if that was a reintroduction or implemented afterwords. There is no doubt that they have that ability now, but the issue is have they always had it? Is that correct?

No it doesn't sound like something the feds would allow. But they do. Any rancher that see's a wolf attacking his livestock is allowed to kill it.

RE: Wolf news
 

Yes because opinion polls are sound scientific evidence. ;)

The Yellowstone elk herd numbers are publicly available. Why do you need an opinion poll if you have the actual numbers? Is that because the actual trends don't support what you want? Why is a predator hunting prey (which is what God created predators to do) unethical?

It's not that smart to make a bunch of statements like that and then not back them up with any knowledge.

Hope this helps.

RE: Wolf news
 

Wow i didnt mean to spark a war here but from wat ive seen there are about the same amount of arguments both ways. It seems like it just matters wat side your on as to how you observe the results. And the poll is just to see how the people who visit my site feel about the issue. and as for not backing up my statements up with knowledge im not gonna leave a post a whole page long if you really wanna know wat i know about the subject my emails on my site im me on msn and well talk about it.

RE: Wolf news
 

I am not on either side here as I don't have enouht information. but I thought I would share a little here since there was mention that the western states were comparing the wolf study to Minnesota. what you need to keep in mind is that "most" of the wolf population in MN is in the northern area (more in the NE). Most of the farmers (ranchers) are in the southern and western areas. that to me means the wolves shouldn't effect the farms as much as maybe the western states, because they aren't in the same area.

I have personally seen 3 wolves chace down what looked to me to be a healthy 6 point buck (still in velvet) when I was hunting bear in north-eastern MN. I have never seen a deer as tired as that deer was.

I did 2 quick searches on mn wolves and some on farm land. I found this site and it seems to have some good info on it and should be a good source. Here is a section of it:

Wolves occasionally prey on Minnesota livestock wherever the two coexist, but most depredations occur in north-central and northwestern counties where farm density and livestock production is highest within the wolf s range. Fritts (1982) estimated that there were about 12,230 farms (at least 80% having some livestock) in the wolf range in 1979, containing 234,000 cattle, 91,000 sheep, and an unknown number of turkeys, swine, horses, goats, chickens, ducks, and geese. Recalculation of the number of farms based on more recent census data (1982 v. 1976; Minnesota Agricultural Statistics 1984) showed about 7,200 farms. This figure is lower than the previous one because a more restricted wolf range was used in computations of farm numbers-based on a refinement of the known wolf distribution (Mech et al. 1988a); and a real decline occurred in farm numbers in wolf range estimated at 13% from 1976 to 1982. A further decline in farm numbers from 7,200 to 6,800 was revealed by the 1987 census data, but total land area in farms declined only 1%. Farm size averaged 141.6 ha in the wolfrange during the study, tending to be larger in northwestern counties and smaller in northeastern counties.

now it seems that the number of farms are declining pretty steadily. I am not sure if there are other issues involved in this because I am not going to spend the time on researching it. The actual web site this came from is
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1...live/study.htm

I also agree with whoever said that the wolves where gone for so long that the elk don't know how to defend themselves from the wolves. This thinking might be why Canada doesn't have such a problem....the wolves have always been there.

I agree with the local states regulating the wolf population if there needs to be regulations. People in thousands of miles away don't see it first hand and don't get the phone calls from the ranchers. it doesn't effect them so it becomes low priority by human nature.

RE: Wolf news
 

Hi Smokechaser

Surely people as a whole inflict plenty of cruelty themselves when predating elk. It really has no place in this debate.Nor does your survey on peoples opinion on what the impacts may be, reflect anything based on reality.
The facts still are that Canada has large elk herds and large populations of wolves. Your theory thus being only american elk cannot co-exist with wolves. Lets be honest, human hunters just don't want the competision.
happy hunting

RE: Wolf news
 

This is yet another misconception. Animals don't just "forget" predator defense tactics ina few generations.Especially since many of the same tactics are used for all predators.I've been in several areas pre and postwolf introduction and I can tell you that elk respondedimmediately by changing foraging times, areas andgeneral habits.This isn't a situation where an entirely new predator is introducted into a totally unsuspectingpopulation, like say dumping tigermuskies in a cutthroat trout lake.

That is akin to saying that if we didn't useour toes for several generations they would suddenly disappear. It doesn't work thatway.

RE: Wolf news
 

ok, obviously this object of this post has now become to shoot me down so this will be my last post on the subject. Im just gonna clear up a few things. I never said that my poll was in any way an acurrate representation of the wolves impact i simply made it to see wat opinion my visitors believed on the subject. And lastly to clear up the wasteful and cruelness of wolves hunting patterns. I realize rereading my post that what i said came across way different than i wanted it to. By that comment i meant that the wolf's style of hunting is such that the quick spread of the reintroduced wolves will have a drastic impact. American elk can coexist with wolves i just think the wolf numbers are growing to quickly and will overwhelm the elk and other game animals for quite a while.

RE: Wolf news
 

I still think yer wrong, or maybe MT is different. This is becoming less than relevant, but now I just gotta know. I will let you know what I find out from my same ranching buddies.

RE: Wolf news
 

Hi Smokechaser,
Not sure who you feel is trying to shoot you down but it certainly is not My intent if the refrence is reguarding myself. My only point is that Alberta has elk, wolves and over 1,000,000 cows. Woves don't seem to be an issue at all.
Happy hunting

RE: Wolf news
 

From The Western Roundup, January 25,2005:

In early January, Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced that the federal government will give Idaho and Montana more control over threatened gray wolves . . . . .

Previously, ranchers needed written authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to kill wolves, and the wolves had to be caught in the act of attacking livestock. Under the rule change, ranchers in Idaho and Montana can now kill wolves without federal permission, simply for chasing livestock.



I stand corrected.

Actually, I'm mostly corrected. I am sure that having to get permission was about thesame as not being allowed. That would explain the stories about USFS relocating instead of allowing the rancher to kill the wolf.



From the same article - one less moose for the rest of us. The wolf didn't need to pay for a license . . . .


A gray wolf on a moose kill in Montana.
D. Robert and Lorri Franz/Corbis