# A Must Read!



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=7324



> The decline in the Greater Yellowstone's elk population since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 has been greater than was originally predicted. In the three winters prior to the reintroduction of wolves, elk on Yellowstone's northern range numbered roughly between 17,000 and 19,000. In the three winters prior to 2008, annual elk counts had declined to between 6,738 and 6,279.
> 
> Obviously, wolves kill elk, and direct predation is responsible for much of the decline in elk numbers, but the rate of direct killing is not great enough to account for the elk population declines observed since 1995 in the Northern Range, the Gallatin Canyon, and the Madison-Firehole herds, all well-colonized by Yellowstone wolves. In addition to direct predation, the decline is due to low calving rates, which are a subtle but important effect of the wolves' presence, Creel said.


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

Thanks for posting that - good read. It won't be long before DWR will need to determine how to manage wolves. IMHO, anyone hunting Logan or North Slope Uintas should keep their eyes open for the wandering Wolf this fall.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

ktowncamo said:


> Thanks for posting that - good read. It won't be long before DWR will need to determine how to manage wolves. IMHO, anyone hunting Logan or North Slope Uintas should keep their eyes open for the wandering Wolf this fall.


+1 1/8

Thanks for the read Pro.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Thanks for the update and it is a must read.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

Interesting. 

Another side note to go along with this. I was watching a program on Animal Planet yesterday which was talking about the animals of Yellowstone. They were talking about the comeback the beavers have made from almost extinction in Yellowstone to the current state of quite abundance. They linked the beavers resurgence to the re-introduction of the wolves. They basically boiled it down to the beavers now being able to eat the soft leafy twigs and branches because the elk aren't eating them anymore because they are constantly on alert or being chased by the wolves.
IMO opinion this is probably why the calving rates are so low, they are constantly being harassed by the wolves and aren't as healthy and strong as they need to be.

I guess a decision will soon need to be made-- Beavers and Wolves or the Majestic Yellowstone Elk.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Out of curiosity, why do elk get the title of majestic, but not the beaver or wolf?


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Out of curiosity, why do elk get the title of majestic, but not the beaver or wolf?


Not sure .....but I've surely seen some majestic beavers in my day :mrgreen:


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

gdog said:


> Not sure .....but I've surely seen some majestic beavers in my day :mrgreen:


****! You beat me to it!


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

duckhunter1096 said:


> gdog said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure .....but I've surely seen some majestic beavers in my day :mrgreen:
> ...


WOW!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

TOUCHE'!


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Out of curiosity, why do elk get the title of majestic, but not the beaver or wolf?


Beats me.. seems like the documentaries like to refer to them as such: "the curious wolf chases the majestic bull elk, while the diligent beaver gathers twigs."


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

I thought it was the "eager beaver" :shock:


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Are you two related? You seem to have similar trains of thought, not to mention the same first name. :mrgreen:


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

How did this topic ever get put in the "Other Animals" section? This isn't about wolves, it is about the decimation of Big Game Herds. You can not introduce an uncontrolled predator onto a herd of animals which have been devoid of such a predator for over 40 generations.

The crazy thing about this world is the "intellectuals" want studies done to show proof of an event. Common sense individuals can see things before they happen and hypothesize the outcome. Wolves may have a place in the newly created ecosystems, since the proliferation of the modern civilzation, but uncontrolled as they are is not an acceptable answer. While the intellectuals do their time-laden studies the wolves have destroyed whole herds of ungulates, most notably is moose, with elk coming in a close second.

I have ridden the 30 miles into the Thorofare and seen the lack of elk and the decimated moose populations in that Wilderness. Anyone who down plays the effects of this predator on big game herds and the negative impact on future hunting opportunity is either a fool, an intellectual, or extremely naive.

And Tree, you set yourself up perfectly for that...... I'd almost wager you cast the bait and caught two with one huck. haha


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Calling wolves Majestic would be like calling swine flu majestic.


----------



## Size Matters (Dec 22, 2007)

There is nothing better than a eager beaver! :mrgreen: but seriously I have noticed a decline when I have gone up go yellowstone the last few years also many of the ones I have seen have been right next to buildings seems like they are looking for protection from the wolves whoever decided to reintroduce the wolf is a complete idiot or idiots.


----------



## Gumbo (Sep 22, 2007)

gdog said:


> I thought it was the "eager beaver"


That has never been my experience.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Not trying to make an arguement about the subject, and this is more so out of curiosity than anything else (and a pinch of ignorance).
But why make a fuss about wolves? I understand that they are predators and that they kill livestock, elk, deer, and so on. But they were a native species, right? So when wolves were originally habitating these regions, things should have been similar (as far as game populations in specific geographic areas). So shouldnt this be a good thing because this allows for more food for other herbavores (spelling?) and therefore allow the herds to stay healthy and weed out the weak?
Again, I am not trying to be obstinate about the subject. Just trying to understand the true concern. Because naturalists would seem to argue that this is just restoring balance...
Let the debate continue... -oOo-


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Not trying to make an arguement about the subject, and this is more so out of curiosity than anything else (and a pinch of ignorance).
> But why make a fuss about wolves? I understand that they are predators and that they kill livestock, elk, deer, and so on. But they were a native species, right? So when wolves were originally habitating these regions, things should have been similar (as far as game populations in specific geographic areas). So shouldnt this be a good thing because this allows for more food for other herbavores (spelling?) and therefore allow the herds to stay healthy and weed out the weak?
> Again, I am not trying to be obstinate about the subject. Just trying to understand the true concern. Because naturalists would seem to argue that this is just restoring balance...
> Let the debate continue... -oOo-


Shut up Bax* !! :wink:


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Restoring balance is giving out a few more tags to us for predation not to wolves.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Bax* said:


> But why make a fuss about wolves? I understand that they are predators and that they kill livestock, elk, deer, and so on. But they were a native species, right? So when wolves were originally habitating these regions, things should have been similar (as far as game populations in specific geographic areas). So shouldnt this be a good thing because this allows for more food for other herbavores (spelling?) and therefore allow the herds to stay healthy and weed out the weak?
> Again, I am not trying to be obstinate about the subject. Just trying to understand the true concern. Because naturalists would seem to argue that this is just restoring balance...
> Let the debate continue... -oOo-


The wolves introduced, not re-introduced, are NOT native and are not managed while the animals they kill/eat are. Also, when wolves were part of the scene man wasn't around, cities/highways weren't a factor, fire suppression wasn't around to limit habitat for elk/deer/moose to have escapement options. I would LOVE to hear of any "herbivores" that have benefited from the spread of 120-200 lb. killing machines. :? It is a MYTH as big as man made global warming proportions that wolves weed out the week. In fact, studies show that bull elk are at greatest risk in the winter due to the wear and tear of the rut. Cow elk are targeted in the spring, killed and have only the unborn calf consumed by these 'lovely' beasts. What 'naturalists' fail to acknowledge is that man IS part of nature, and we DO affect nature, thus the "let nature take it's course" is nonsensical at best, dishonest at worst. These so-called 'animal lovers' do NOT care about animals/nature more than hunters/livestock owners, they mainly want to end hunting and see wolves as the best route to get their agenda rammed down the throats of the rest of us. All the elk you see in Utah are a result of hunters/sportsmen NOT 'naturalists', same goes for the bighorn sheep/moose/turkeys and several non-hunted species have benefited immensely as well from conservation efforts spearheaded/funded by hunters while the wolf morons cause more death/suffering of wild animals w/o helping any outside of the wolf.


----------



## Size Matters (Dec 22, 2007)

Very well said PRO.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> The wolves *introduced*, not re-introduced, are NOT native and are not managed while the animals they kill/eat are.


Good response Pro
You gave me some information that I did not know. I think that many "naturalists" have dooped others (including myself  ) into believing that wolves were and should be a part of the Yellowstone (and surrounding areas) landscape. I did not know that they were *introduced* and not re-introduced. That is a key point that I think has been neatly swept under the rug so as to prevent your average Joe from knowing the truth. (And I am taking your word as gospel here because you haven't steered me wrong before).

Once again, well said Pro 8)


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

There were once wolves in Yellowstone and surrounding areas, but not these wolves on steroids that are running around killing everything including lion/bear hounds, livestock, pets, elk, moose, deer, coyotes, among others. 8) These wolves belong in Montana/Idaho/Wyoming about as much as Obama belongs in the White House.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> There were once wolves in Yellowstone and surrounding areas, but not these wolves on steroids that are running around killing everything including lion/bear hounds, livestock, pets, elk, moose, deer, coyotes, among others. 8) These wolves belong in Montana/Idaho/Wyoming *about as much as Obama belongs in the White House*.


BOOYAH!!!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> There were once wolves in Yellowstone and surrounding areas, but not these wolves on steroids that are running around killing everything including lion/bear hounds, livestock, pets, elk, moose, deer, coyotes, among others. 8) These wolves belong in Montana/Idaho/Wyoming about as much as Obama belongs in the White House.


And don't forget that the original objectives have been met and now they want to change the rules.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> The wolves introduced, not re-introduced, are NOT native so are you saying it is a figment of mans imagination that wolves never were in the northern rockies ecosystem?and are not managed ranchers pretty much have free range to shoot any wolf they seewhile the animals they kill/eat are. Also, when wolves were part of the scene man wasn't around, cities/highways weren't a factorWho in the hell do you think killed all of the wolves, badgers?!, fire suppression wasn't around to limit habitat for elk/deer/moose to have escapement options. apparently elk can only avoid wolves in the open and not in the trees? I would LOVE to hear of any "herbivores" that have benefited from the spread of 120-200 lb. killing machines 120-200 pound wolf? Let me tell you about the 94 pound brown trout I landed out of the provo last week and the 875 pound two point I shot on the archery hunt last fall. It is a MYTH as big as man made global warming proportions that wolves weed out the week. In fact, studies show that bull elk are at greatest risk in the winter due to the wear and tear of the rut. Cow elk are targeted in the spring, killed and have only the unborn calf consumed by these 'lovely' beasts cow elk are targeted because they are pregnant and cannot avoid predators. What 'naturalists' fail to acknowledge is that man IS part of nature, and we DO affect nature, thus the "let nature take it's course" is nonsensical at best, dishonest at worst. These so-called 'animal lovers' do NOT care about animals/nature more than hunters/livestock owners, they mainly want to end hunting and see wolves as the best route to get their agenda rammed down the throats of the rest of us. All the elk you see in Utah are a result of hunters/sportsmen NOT 'naturalists', same goes for the bighorn sheep/moose/turkeys ah, re-intruction of species back onto their original habitats after being wiped out by man wiped out my man. What an odd cooincidence...!and several non-hunted species have benefited immensely as well from conservation efforts spearheaded/funded by hunters while the wolf morons cause more death/suffering of wild animals w/o helping any outside of the wolf. apparently wolfs make animals suffer more than coyotes, or mountain lions!


 Thanks for the opinions Pro, where are you hiding the facts? Let me guess, a wolf ate them.... :roll:


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

flyguy7 said:


> apparently wolfs make animals suffer more than coyotes, or mountain lions! Thanks for the opinions Pro, where are you hiding the facts? Let me guess, a wolf ate them.... :roll:


So I have done some additional reading on the subject because Pro 8) got me thinking...

I can definitely see both sides of the argument on this issue. But I think that the point to consider on both sides of the argument is that I dont think anyone really realized what a success re-introducing (or introducing) wolves into the area would be. By that I mean, I dont think anyone realized that they would re-populate so quickly and spread out so quickly.

And because wolves were gone for so long, would this mean that we didnt fully realize the rammifications of releasing them into these areas? IE: was it fully considered what an efficient killing machine these animals are? Did we just assume they would weed out the weak, or just assume that they would only kill a meal when they needed it?

To me, this seems to be a double sided argument. In some ways I can respect the "naturalist's" view of releasing wolves, and in more ways I can respect the views of ranchers, sportsman, and fearful residents in the area. Realistically speaking, it seems that they do more harm than good. Either way, I think that if we eliminate wolves again, we will have more pro-wolf naturalists pushing to preserve them, but if we allow their population to continue to flourish, sportsman and ranchers who are losing countless livestock will be up in arms about it too.

It seems to me that the best solution to this issue would be some sort of limited entry hunt that is designed to keep the wolf population to a minimum, but not erraticate them again. This could potentially raise additional funds to help big game populations recover from over predation and habitat improvement/restoration. Besides, how cool would it be to hunt a wolf in Yellowstone?

Maybe I am talking out of my arse here, but a middle ground solution may be best here. But I still think I'll agree more so with Pro here.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Bax* said:


> But I still think I'll agree more so with Pro here.


D'oh !! :shock:

Another victim !! :wink:


----------



## East_Fork (Apr 22, 2009)

I have heard there is a difference between the type of wolves that were once there, and the wolves that are now there. For example the wolves that were introduced from Canada are much larger because they are not the same type of wolves that were previously in that area (like white-tailed deer vs. mule deer). Is there any truth to this? This is an interesting topic that I have been interested in for quite some time, and I might right my final College Speculation paper on it.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

East_Fork said:


> I might right my final College Speculation paper on it.


You may want to run spell check before you turn in your paper :lol: 
J/K
Great point you make East_Fork


----------



## East_Fork (Apr 22, 2009)

ahhh... nice, spell check wouldn't have caught that, I just need to re-read it. But, you should see the Tentative schedule for our class :shock: wow, is all I can say, I don't think he re-read that either.

dallan


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> What 'naturalists' fail to acknowledge is that man IS part of nature..... All the elk you see in Utah are a result of hunters/sportsmen NOT 'naturalists'......





Bax* said:


> You gave me some information that I did not know. I think that many "naturalists" have dooped others (including myself  ).....


Hey now you two  - lets not get Naturalists confused with radical environmentalists, especially not PETA and other animal rights activists.
Many Naturalists are also active hunters/sportsmen, and so, concerned about Elk, Moose, and lots of other critters that are important in any ecosystem.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

The Naturalist said:


> lets not get Naturalists confused with *radical* environmentalists, especially not PETA and other animal rights activists.


GREAT point!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

When wolves repopulate Utah, I don't see it as a disaster. Sure, they will have to be controlled via hunting, trapping, etc. And yes, they will kill a lot of wildlife, livestock, pets, leprachans, etc. The wolves that were reintroduced to Yellowstone and Idaho were a subspecies of the Gray Wolf, which was also the same wolf that was extirpated from the rockies way back when. Although they can get pretty hefty at around 145 pounds, the average weight is between 80 and 110, not the gargantuans Pro seems to think will abound. I don't like having to share my quarry with another "hunter" any more than the next guy, but it could be worse (utah could treat wolves like california treats the mountain lion!) Just my two cents.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Chaser and I went out shooting those tiny quail sized clay pigeons today (and he out shined me  ) and he mentioned that the wolves released into the states were gray wolves, not timber wolves. What would be the motivation for doing this? Weren't the original wolves timber wolves?
If we wanted things like they were before we hunted them all down, shouldnt we have released the original breed instead of another breed of wolf?
Just curious here...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

> Re: A Must Read!
> by Bax* on Aug 01, '09, 5:51
> 
> Chaser and I went out shooting those tiny quail sized clay pigeons today (and he out shined me ) and he mentioned that the wolves released into the states were gray wolves, not timber wolves. What would be the motivation for doing this? Weren't the original wolves timber wolves?
> ...


Chaser is right, the wolves released were gray wolves, but a subspecies: aka the timber wolf, aka the rocky mountain wolf aka the Makenzie wolf. There are 4 subspecies of the gray wolf, and the wolves taken from western Canada (near Dawson Creek and Hinton)and released in Idaho and Yellowstone were the timber wolf subspecies, canis lupis occidentalis, the same one that roamed the Rocky Mountains before. Of course, its possible that canis lupis nubilus (aka the great plains wolf, aka "timber wolf", aka buffalo wolf, also roamed the area. It gets a little confusing using the common names, as they sometimes apply to different subspecies, but they are all Gray wolves, (canis lupis).

The link Pro provided was an interesting read, and it clearly shows that it really isn't the predation (killing) of the animals that is decimating the herds, its the "stress level" caused by the wolves simply being in the area and stalking the animals that causes thier reproductive nature to shut down, which in turn leads to less animals year by year. There is much more research to be done, but clearly, progress is being made. So, I really don't think it matters much the actual subspecies of wolf that will be around, as any one of them will stress out the elk/deer herds if not controlled. I certainly hope Utah will carry out a plan that will get the job done.

Those tiny quail sized pigeons can really humble a guy, I know!


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Another point to not forget is that the original objectives that were set forth before the reintroduction were met a few years ago, and exceeded in the following months, to the point where WAAAAY more wolves are out there doing their thing. Now there are more wolves than Yellowstone can support, so they are spreading like the plague. It is ridiculous at best to say that they are endangered since the wolves put in Yellowstone came from stock that is NOT endangered. To protect them in the park until the packs take a decent foothold makes sense, but to call them "endangered", now that's asinine. 

These things are killing machines. Apex predators. They have FAR surpassed the objectives, and it is high time to MANAGE their numbers. IMO, it should be completely up to the individual states to manage them as they see fit. Inside the park, I feel the responsibility lies with the F&G to cull the packs to maintain appropriate numbers. But to value the wolf higher than the other animals, its not fair at best, and very shortsighted ecologically. I'm with Pro (although he's a bit zealous :wink: )- I believe the wolf is being used by radical environmentalists as a means to stop hunting.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Stillhunterman has it right on. Quite a few years ago taxonomists had about 20 different subspecies of wolves, however in the last few years they have narrowed it down to just five subspecies, since there was not enough differences to justify so many classifications.

There are a lot of factors relating to stress on Elk herds. Wolves are definitely one of those factors. Evidence indicates that over the last decade the Western drought also impacts Elk herds. Also stress caused by exceeding their carrying capacity in Yellowstone. These, plus probably many more subtle factors, all seemed to come into play at about the same time. Thus the Elk Herds dropped dramatically. However, The reports I've seen show that they appear to be stabilizing. Time will tell.


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

This is a wolf taken from the same area where they got the wolf's for Yellowstone. Canada. :shock:


I have posted this pic before, but someone had mentioned that they didn't get very big. :roll:


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

horsesma said:


> This is a wolf taken from the same area where they got the wolf's for Yellowstone. Canada. :shock:
> 
> I have posted this pic before, but someone had mentioned that they didn't get very big. :roll:


Has this picture been validated? I have never seen a dog that big, not even in large domestic breeds


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

horsesma said:


> I have posted this pic before, but someone had mentioned that they didn't get very big. :roll:


It has been enhanced - see Scientificangler's thread on "Enhanced Fish" under the General Fishing/questions section.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Hey FlyGuy7,

PRO was dead on when he said the wolves currently in Yellowstone, Idaho, and Montana were *introduced* and not reintroduced. The native species that once resided in these areas, the Canis lupus nubilus sub-species, was eradicated by the 1930's and can only be found in the Great Lakes region. It is a much smaller and much less aggresive wolf. The species currently in the greater Yellowstone area is the Rocky Mountain or Alaskan wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis), and was historically located north of the border in Canada and Alaska and is a species that is much larger and a more aggresive wolf. Compound that with a large population of prey not accustomed to this particular predator, the wolves are having a hay day. Think of the most damaging introduction of a non-native fish species possible to one of our prime fisheries and the affect it could have. The same thing is happening in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho; and soon will be occcuring in Utah. There are several documented cases of these wolves sport killing much of their prey, meaning they kill it just to kill and consume little or none of the meat. They are worse than poaching in my opinion. Wolves like their meal fresh, so they seldom return to their kill, unlike a mountain lion or a coyote. I watched a video of a wolf that caught a deer, ate a few pounds of flesh while the deer was still alive, then left it to die a painful death. The guy that filmed it returned on several occasions to see if the wolf ever returned and it never did. All these animals need to be eradicated or big game hunting in these states will be all but eradicated.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Flyfishn247 said:


> Hey FlyGuy7,
> 
> The native species that once resided in these areas, the Canis lupus nubilus sub-species, was eradicated by the 1930's and can only be found in the Great Lakes region. It is a much smaller and much less aggresive wolf. The species currently in the greater Yellowstone area is the Rocky Mountain or Alaskan wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis.


Why would they introduce a different type of wolf? If they wanted to make things the way they were, it seems logical to use the original breed...


----------



## East_Fork (Apr 22, 2009)

hhmm... so I started writing my paper, and while brain-storming I have another question. Since this wolf was brought from Canada and turned loose here, that really wouldn't make the wolf "endangered" would it? I mean there are many other wolves from Canada that are exactly the same type of wolf. (I don't know maybe this wolf is endangered in Canada?) If the wolves that were released all died, couldn't we just get more? If it's not the same breed that was previously here, then how can they be endangered? Couldn't they just be "protected"? Sorry for using a deer example again, but if the shoe fits... Since white-tailed deer are not here and they are making there way here, then are they considered an endangered species? There are many more back east but few here in Utah (isn't this kinda the same thing that is happening?). hhmm... maybe I’m thinking to much and this isn’t a valid argument. It kinda seems as though this whole wolf issue has other motives behind it, or maybe I’m just pissed because I’m stuck writing this paper instead of going on a week long backpacking trip this week through the Uintas with the scouts that I’ve never missed since I was 14, bahhh…. college and work now officially suck big time! I think I will have to camp out in my backyard using nothing but my trail tent, mummy bag and stove eating nothing but top ramen noodles just to make it through the week.

dallan


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

East_Fork said:


> hhmm... so I started writing my paper, and while brain-storming I have another question. Since this wolf was brought from Canada and turned loose here, that really wouldn't make the wolf "endangered" would it? I mean there are many other wolves from Canada that are exactly the same type of wolf. (I don't know maybe this wolf is endangered in Canada?)It's definitely not endangered in Canada, nor protected. The can be hunted there from my understanding If the wolves that were released all died, couldn't we just get more?Yes, although they wouldn't be familiar with the surroundings, and we'd have to go through the ten year process again, which would make them "endangered" outside the park also, effectively ending wolf hunting (which we still can't do anyway) If it's not the same breed that was previously here, then how can they be endangered? Couldn't they just be "protected"?In my opinion, yes, but only inside Yellowstone. Outside the park the states should decide how to handle them Sorry for using a deer example again, but if the shoe fits... Since white-tailed deer are not here and they are making there way here, then are they considered an endangered species? No. Endangered "population", sure, but not endangered "species" There are many more back east but few here in Utah (isn't this kinda the same thing that is happening?). hhmm... maybe I'm thinking to much and this isn't a valid argument. Its as valid as any argument being made by the other sideIt kinda seems as though this whole wolf issue has other motives behind itBINGO!!!, or maybe I'm just pissed because I'm stuck writing this paper instead of going on a week long backpacking trip this week through the Uintas with the scouts that I've never missed since I was 14, bahhh&#8230;. college and work now officially suck big time! I think I will have to camp out in my backyard using nothing but my trail tent, mummy bag and stove eating nothing but top ramen noodles just to make it through the week.
> 
> dallan


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

This whole wolf thing has definately been beat to death, but their still remains many unanswered questions. As I said in a previous post, the wolves that were transplanted were roaming the rockies of Idaho, Wyo, Montana and Utah before they were killed off, as was the plains wolf. But that really doesn't matter much. Exactly "why" this whole thing was started and "who" was behind it lurking in the shadows is what knaws at me. Pro may not be too far off his thoughts of the anti's being behind this, or at least pushing it hard.

The whole "endangered", "threatened" listing thing is extreemely difficult to understand, since this entire project was deemed "experimenal" from the getgo. This gave them a different lattitude by which things can be handled, including the ability of Ranchers to shoot wolves who were destroying livestolk without any reprocussions. If you have the time, and can decipher the language, here is a link that may give you more insight as to the way this program was instituted and the direction it was thought to have gone.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/FR11221994Yellowstone.htm

There is no doubt in my mind it is only a matter of time before these critters start gaining a foothold here in Utah. I can only hope the state will adopt a feasible plan to deal with the population before things get out of hand. This could be a long battle... :evil:


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> Hey FlyGuy7,
> 
> PRO was dead on when he said the wolves currently in Yellowstone, Idaho, and Montana were *introduced* and not reintroduced. The native species that once resided in these areas, the Canis lupus nubilus sub-species, was eradicated by the 1930's and can only be found in the Great Lakes region. It is a *much smaller* and *much less aggresive wolf*. The species currently in the greater Yellowstone area is the Rocky Mountain or Alaskan wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis), and was historically located north of the border in Canada and Alaska and is a species that is *much larger and a more aggresive wolf*...... There are several *documented cases * :?: of these wolves sport killing much of their prey, meaning they kill it just to kill and consume little or none of the meat......


In science - words like much larger, much smaller, more, less, don't have merit because they are relative to the opinions of the observer. Measurements are the best tools for analysis, then one can say it is _this_ much smaller, etc. If you compare a Mexican Gray Wolf to an Arctic Wolf you will notice a distinct difference in size. If you could compare the former Yellowstone wolves with the introduced ones today would their really be a differnce?
Yellowstone sits on the fringe between populations of different subspecies. "Wolves travel far and wide.....their wide-ranging movements tend to keep the gene pool mixed, which in turn prevents the creation of localized forms....." -Doug Smith/Lead Wolf Biologist/Yellowstone Wolves/_Decade of the Wolf, page 30_.
In other words wolf populations are continually interbreeding, and since there are no original wolves in Yellowstone to compare with the _introduced_ ones it becomes a mute point whether the wolves today are introduced or reintroduced. How do you measure aggressiveness?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

well put Mr. Naturalist


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

This has been a interesting read. There have been some very interesting points of view expressed. 

It does not matter if this particular wolf is a sub-species or not. It does not matter that they are aggressive or not. What matters is that wolf in a pack, at this point in time; they are at the top of the food chain. They have exceeded the goals set forth when they were introduced. As a sub-species in our world today, they are not endangered. Nothing in our system lets a predator at this level go unchecked. From man on down, we are all held in a balance through many different means. In this particulate case we can afford to make a few mistakes when it comes to the wolf, because time has already shown that, one we can get more, and two they will recover very quickly. But if left unchecked as they are now, they are showing to be very destructive to the rest of the controlled system. There is no valid reason for them to be protected as if they were condors. There is no valid reason that the courts should even be involved.

The current course with the wolf is wrong and it is having a big impact. They need to be brought into check just like we all are. This is called management. This is what was called for in the original plan and this is our system. What is happening now is the same as allowing general season elk hunting, with unlimited tags, in an area that once was a limited-entry elk unit.


----------



## East_Fork (Apr 22, 2009)

Huntoholic said:


> This has been a interesting read. There have been some very interesting points of view expressed.
> 
> It does not matter if this particular wolf is a sub-species or not. It does not matter that they are aggressive or not. What matters is that wolf in a pack, at this point in time; they are at the top of the food chain. They have exceeded the goals set forth when they were introduced. As a sub-species in our world today, they are not endangered. Nothing in our system lets a predator at this level go unchecked. From man on down, we are all held in a balance through many different means. In this particulate case we can afford to make a few mistakes when it comes to the wolf, because time has already shown that, one we can get more, and two they will recover very quickly. But if left unchecked as they are now, they are showing to be very destructive to the rest of the controlled system. There is no valid reason for them to be protected as if they were condors. There is no valid reason that the courts should even be involved.
> 
> The current course with the wolf is wrong and it is having a big impact. They need to be brought into check just like we all are. This is called management. This is what was called for in the original plan and this is our system. What is happening now is the same as allowing general season elk hunting, with unlimited tags, in an area that once was a limited-entry elk unit.


Great post and I really like your statement I marked. It's odd that all other animals are managed, but the top predator is not. That is exactly where I wanted my conclusion to end in my essay.

dallan


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> This has been a interesting read. There have been some very interesting points of view expressed.
> 
> ...... But if left unchecked as they are now, they are showing to be very destructive to the rest of the controlled system..... Destructive to big game? Lodgepole Pine forests? Trout? You need to be more specific here.There is no valid reason that the courts should even be involved. Agreed
> 
> ...... They need to be brought into check just like we all are. This is called management. I agree, and I believe most Wolf Biologists agree that they will need to be managed, it is the animal rights activists, and anti-wolf hate groups that are muddying things up in the courts with suits and counter-suits. What we need is for a judge with some backbone to step up and say they are here and here to stay, so lets get on with the proper management of them.This is what was called for in the original plan and this is our system. What is happening now is the same as allowing general season elk hunting, with unlimited tags, in an area that once was a limited-entry elk unit.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The Naturalist said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > This has been a interesting read. There have been some very interesting points of view expressed.
> ...


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

The Naturalist said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > This has been a interesting read. There have been some very interesting points of view expressed.
> ...


*I could have been more specific. I was also thinking of the impact further down the road, like what happens after the elk. Is it the deer to next be hit. One uncontrolled member of a controlled system will negatively affect all the rest in that controlled system.*



> ...... They need to be brought into check just like we all are. This is called management. I agree, and I believe most Wolf Biologists agree that they will need to be managed, it is the animal rights activists, and anti-wolf hate groups that are muddying things up in the courts with suits and counter-suits. What we need is for a judge with some backbone to step up and say they are here and here to stay, so lets get on with the proper management of them.This is what was called for in the original plan and this is our system. What is happening now is the same as allowing general season elk hunting, with unlimited tags, in an area that once was a limited-entry elk unit.


*I think that some of the Wolf biologists forget that these are not condors. After reading this thread, that is one of the points that I had not thought of before. Simply speaking if you are worried about the gene pool, go get some more from a different area and introduce them. If the wolf gets hammered by what ever (man or mother nature), they can be re-introduced and we already know the introduction system the biologists have put together works very well. But the simple fact is we also know that the prey, in this controlled system, do not react as fast to recovering. Part of the goal in the controlled system is to remove the peaks and valleys that mother nature would normally have in place. The animal rights activists have not learned the lessons that are now being taught to the tree huggers. One controlled, trees (fuel for fire) and one uncontrolled, Fire. The out come for man is very destructive in the context of the controlled system (Managed).

A side note, after seeing how a wolf pack works, if I fear anything in the woods, it is the wolf pack. Maybe it is the fact that it is one against many, but I have seen first hand at their strength, speed, and cunningness. They are a formidable predator and they have my respect. No other predator, other than man, is as efficient as the wolf pack. The Anti-wolf people are currently reacting for the most part to the animal activists.*


----------

