Yellowstone is Dead
01-16-2011, 11:26 AM
#31
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stumptown, MT
Posts: 152
Sorry, but even the biggest wolves in Alaska and Canada top out below 180lbs. The biggest wolf ever recorded in NA weighed 175 lbs, and that was back in 1939 in AK. The average wolf in MT, ID, and WY is going to be ~100lbs for a male and ~85 for a female. Those must have been some small wolves we had 100 years ago if the ones we have now have 100lbs on them. If you have seen very many wolves, you would know a 130-140lb wolf is a BIG wolf.
Wolves have never been eradicated from MT, and they have been coming south from Canada long before they introduced wolves to YNP. The problem isn't what type of wolf we have, the problem is they were allowed to increase their numbers above what the habitat can sustain.
SSS isn't the answer, doing so will just make it easier for the environmentalists to keep the wolf listed.
01-16-2011, 12:13 PM
#32
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,081
[QUOTE=skiking;3758776]
Sorry, but even the biggest wolves in Alaska and Canada top out below 180lbs. The biggest wolf ever recorded in NA weighed 175 lbs, and that was back in 1939 in AK. The average wolf in MT, ID, and WY is going to be ~100lbs for a male and ~85 for a female. Those must have been some small wolves we had 100 years ago if the ones we have now have 100lbs on them. If you have seen very many wolves, you would know a 130-140lb wolf is a BIG wolf
Check this out.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=34797
We have several at the taxidermy shop that go well over 150lbs!
Sorry, but even the biggest wolves in Alaska and Canada top out below 180lbs. The biggest wolf ever recorded in NA weighed 175 lbs, and that was back in 1939 in AK. The average wolf in MT, ID, and WY is going to be ~100lbs for a male and ~85 for a female. Those must have been some small wolves we had 100 years ago if the ones we have now have 100lbs on them. If you have seen very many wolves, you would know a 130-140lb wolf is a BIG wolf
Check this out.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=34797
We have several at the taxidermy shop that go well over 150lbs!
Last edited by fritz1; 01-16-2011 at 01:01 PM.
01-16-2011, 03:55 PM
#33
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 674
Ok I'm no expert but this is the way it was explained to me by abiologist friend of mine .
Its like whitetail deer the deer in Canada weight more then the deer in Florida on average takes a bigger hardier deer to live in the the far north regions of their range . Same with wolves.
Ok here is the subspecies differences.
Great Plains Wolf (Canis lupus nubilus)
Also called Timber Wolf and Buffalo Wolf, this is the was most common subspecies of grey wolf in the continental US.
The range of these animals used to cover the whole of the US and southern Canada. However relentless hunting and habitat destruction has resulted in their protection as an endangered species.
Great Plains Wolf has made a comeback and their numbers are rising again.
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)
The wolf from which most others arise, the gray wolf is the largest of the canid species. They can be found in a wide variety of habitats throughout most of North America.
These animals survived the ice age and are thought to be the ancestor of domestic dog.
Its like whitetail deer the deer in Canada weight more then the deer in Florida on average takes a bigger hardier deer to live in the the far north regions of their range . Same with wolves.
Ok here is the subspecies differences.
Great Plains Wolf (Canis lupus nubilus)
Also called Timber Wolf and Buffalo Wolf, this is the was most common subspecies of grey wolf in the continental US.
The range of these animals used to cover the whole of the US and southern Canada. However relentless hunting and habitat destruction has resulted in their protection as an endangered species.
Great Plains Wolf has made a comeback and their numbers are rising again.
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)
The wolf from which most others arise, the gray wolf is the largest of the canid species. They can be found in a wide variety of habitats throughout most of North America.
These animals survived the ice age and are thought to be the ancestor of domestic dog.
01-16-2011, 04:08 PM
#34
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stumptown, MT
Posts: 152
Seen that before, highly doubt that it is as heavy as they claim. I got pictures on my phone last fall with a guy claiming he shot a #250 lb wolf near Darby, it was probably 1/2 of that. It is like a mystical 430"+ bull elk, probably one out there but even if you wander the woods for the rest of your life you will probably never see one that big.
Rule #1. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.
Rule #1. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.
01-16-2011, 04:31 PM
#35
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
justhuntitall
I have never heard that the great lakes wolf is also called the timber wolf..but U R the first to even attemp to do any research and come up with the scientific name.....I have read alot on wolves lately and have found nothing on this so called timber wolf, the search always comes back to the gray wolf just as the search for this canadian gray wolf.....every search comes back to canis lupus and it's subspeicies of which there are a number of different ones , that the discussion is ongoing on how many there really is.......with Canis lupus familiaris being one of them...I guess we better be a gettin after them also!!!!!
I have never heard that the great lakes wolf is also called the timber wolf..but U R the first to even attemp to do any research and come up with the scientific name.....I have read alot on wolves lately and have found nothing on this so called timber wolf, the search always comes back to the gray wolf just as the search for this canadian gray wolf.....every search comes back to canis lupus and it's subspeicies of which there are a number of different ones , that the discussion is ongoing on how many there really is.......with Canis lupus familiaris being one of them...I guess we better be a gettin after them also!!!!!
01-16-2011, 06:03 PM
#36
Spike
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
I am a biologist and in my ecology class in college they discussed what happens when things are signficantly changed. When you add or remove a species it has drastic changes to the whole ecosystem. When I went to Yellowstone years ago (as a driving through the park visitor) I learned that because of the wolves the herbivores stopped eating the plants by the streams because they were too out in the open (easy prey for the wolves). This let the plants grow more, which shaded the streams, which cooled them, which allowed the trout to return. This sounded good to me and really demonstrated the far reaching effects of a top predator. I even had a question on a college exam about this exact situation.
In this case when you introduce a predatory species that has been gone for decades, which allowed its prey to increase in numbers, you will get a HUGE increase in the population of the predator. It will be so big that it will drive its prey almost to extinction. The long term effect of the drop in prey is a big drop in the predator. Then the prey comes back, then the predator, etc. Eventually you will hit a more natural balance (which still usually goes through cycles). The problem is that this is on a very long term scale (many decades to centuries).
To me it seems like hunting the wolf is an absolutely perfect way to keep their population from rising so sharply that they bring their prey within sight of extinction. They were there before, in balance, but it would be a LONG time for it to ever reach that naturally, if it did.
In my opinion someone should have the right to keep animals on their own property under control. I know when the squirrels get out of control here (literally chewing on the deck and house) the problem doesn't last long...
In this case when you introduce a predatory species that has been gone for decades, which allowed its prey to increase in numbers, you will get a HUGE increase in the population of the predator. It will be so big that it will drive its prey almost to extinction. The long term effect of the drop in prey is a big drop in the predator. Then the prey comes back, then the predator, etc. Eventually you will hit a more natural balance (which still usually goes through cycles). The problem is that this is on a very long term scale (many decades to centuries).
To me it seems like hunting the wolf is an absolutely perfect way to keep their population from rising so sharply that they bring their prey within sight of extinction. They were there before, in balance, but it would be a LONG time for it to ever reach that naturally, if it did.
In my opinion someone should have the right to keep animals on their own property under control. I know when the squirrels get out of control here (literally chewing on the deck and house) the problem doesn't last long...
01-17-2011, 11:24 AM
#38
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 694
Well not everyone sees an elk as a target. Non Hunters own the game and land as well. On my own property the moose walkin around on it don't belong to me and shouldn't anyways.
01-17-2011, 12:03 PM
#39
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kittitas, Wa.
Posts: 462
Well said ...I'm sure some will dissagree...but U R right, everyone should have a say in what is going on!!!!!!
01-17-2011, 03:31 PM
#40
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 334
God, the internet is great place!
I am amazed at two things:
1. How the weight of that Alberta wolf has gone clear to 230 lbs, about a pound for every time it gets posted.
2. How many freaking people have seen it in person.(or at least their mother's brother's nephew's neighbor's cousin twice removed did) LOL.
Next time one of you internet wolf mythologists gets a 220 lbs(very typical weight in MT and ID) black bear down on the ground, go ahead and lift it and get a picture like that guy in the wolf porn pic.
The fact of the matter is, barely 1 person in 100 hunters could even accurately identify a 150 inch whitetail, let alone the weight of an animal most have never laid eyes on.
Just ask any barstool biologist around here, these "Canadian Grays" fart thunder and crap lightning, they have 5 litters a year(yeah, one guy actually told me this), and they eat twice their body weight every day.
I am amazed at two things:
1. How the weight of that Alberta wolf has gone clear to 230 lbs, about a pound for every time it gets posted.
2. How many freaking people have seen it in person.(or at least their mother's brother's nephew's neighbor's cousin twice removed did) LOL.
Next time one of you internet wolf mythologists gets a 220 lbs(very typical weight in MT and ID) black bear down on the ground, go ahead and lift it and get a picture like that guy in the wolf porn pic.
The fact of the matter is, barely 1 person in 100 hunters could even accurately identify a 150 inch whitetail, let alone the weight of an animal most have never laid eyes on.
Just ask any barstool biologist around here, these "Canadian Grays" fart thunder and crap lightning, they have 5 litters a year(yeah, one guy actually told me this), and they eat twice their body weight every day.