With Wolves, It’s Time to Separate Fact From Fiction
By Jeff Welsch, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Guest Writer, 4-13-10
![]() |
|
Never let facts get in the way of some good hysteria.
That seems to be the mantra of the fringe anti-wolf crowd as it once again seizes on the iconic animal’s imagined evils in yet another attempt to revisit the futile notion of a second extermination.
Pick up a newspaper in any part of Montana, Idaho or Wyoming these days and there’s a fair chance you’ll read a screed about the latest reasons why the big, bad wolf should be banished:
& They’re eating all the elk.
& They’ve got tapeworms.
& They’re Canadian.
It’s obvious that this is an orchestrated backlash. It’s just as obvious that these are recycled arguments grasping at the same old straws.
Let’s start the myth-busting from the top:
They’re eating all the elk: Yes, it’s true, wolves eat elk. It’s just as true that elk are doing just fine in Greater Yellowstone and beyond.
Hunter success rates are high. For instance, in Wyoming’s prized Jackson herd, in the heart of prime wolf and grizzly country, an average of 36 percent of hunters have harvested an elk over the past 10 years. Compare that to a 20 percent success rate in neighboring Colorado, where there are essentially no wolves and the elk population is triple the size.
Populations are still above wildlife-agency objectives in some places, leveling off in others, and lower elsewhere. Where elk numbers are lower, wolf predation is just one of many factors. In most cases, suppression of wildfire and corresponding reduction of elk habitat is a prime culprit.
Hunter complaints about not seeing as many elk are more about wolves changing ungulate behavior than population declines. Elk simply aren’t lingering where they once did.
Moreover, keeping elk wary has had an extraordinary impact on habitat, especially in Yellowstone National Park. Willows, cottonwoods and aspen are regenerating after seven decades of elk over-browsing, re-opening areas to other wildlife.
This “trophic cascade” phenomenon moved one northwest Colorado rancher to shift his thinking on wolves after they moved into his lands. At first wary of the wolf’s impacts on cattle and elk herds, he now welcomes their presence after seeing how they apparently helped restore his dying aspen stands.
They’ve got tapeworms. Yes, but Echinococcus — like many common parasites — is also shared by coyotes, foxes, deer, moose, elk and our best friend Fido.
The Montana Department of Health says that while transmission of the tapeworm to humans is “theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely.” Renowned wolf scientist Dr. David Mech dismisses the Echinococcus argument as “a tempest in a teapot” and notes that the humans at greatest risk — wolf biologists — have never contracted the parasite despite “having handled thousands of wolves, coyotes and scats.”
They’re Canadian. It’s déjà vu all over again on this one — Greater Yellowstone wolves are an exotic species because they were imported from Alberta and British Columbia, where they’re reputedly bigger, badder and more voracious.
Truth is, wolves trapped in Canada were selected because of similarities in habitat and prey. They are the same species that has traditionally crossed the Montana border. Science and common sense tell us this is one species: Canis lupus.
Bigger? An Idaho Department of Fish & Game wolf expert says the average weight of the 188 wolves shot by hunters in Idaho averaged less than 100 pounds.
There’s no denying wolves have had an impact on game and livestock. People whose livings are tied to ranching or outfitting are understandably anxious.
But hysteria and hyperbole in pursuit of an unattainable goal isn’t an answer. Just as it’s unreasonable to insist that not a single hair on the hide of a wolf ever be harmed, it’s just as unreasonable to expect that wolves will again be exterminated or banished to parks.
Wolves are here to stay, and the sooner those of us between the fringe elements talk constructively about maintaining viable populations, the sooner we’ll move past the polarization — and realize that most of us have the same values about protecting open spaces, wildlife and our unique quality of life.
Jeff Welsch is communications director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Bozeman, Mont.
NewWest.Net welcomes guest columns of all stripes. Submit yours to editor@newwest.net.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
Let us look at numbers.
56 adult wolves and 80 pups were documented to have been killed during the years over the 14 years that NPS was in charge and eliminating them.. Some references say 14 of those adults were killed during years that the army was in charge prior to the NPS years.
14 Canadian wolves were released in Yellowstone in 1995 (despite confirmed presence of at least 2 wolves inside of the park) Another 17 Canadian wolves and 10 cattle killing wolves from Montana were released in 1996. That is a total of 41 adults in 2 years versus a total of 56 adults removed the the park over a number of years. At least 2 pair of the first plant produced pups the first year.
It was claimed that 19,000 elk were in the northern herd (which extends a considerable distance into Montana) and that only wolves could control them. They did not count the elk for the next couple of years.
The elk numbers then rapidly declined, by 2003 they only counted 9445 elk in that herd, but left little signs all over the park that the number was an undercount, they were sure it was over 11,000. The following year it was just over 8000. It has been in the 6000 range now for several years split about half and half between Montana and actually inside of Yellowstone. The Montana portion of the herd numbered 2236 this year and the last 100 hunting permits for that area were cancelled at a considerable cost to the state G&F;for management of habitat and to local hunters. I believe it was 2800 at the time the wolves were brought in.
Back to Yellowstone itself, the Norris/Firehole herd does not migrate and has remained at a stable 650-750 elk over the years. In 2008 there were 108 left, with 0-4 calf retention rate.
I do not know if there is any tracking of the bears at all, I think the griz are counted as part of the entire GYE and I can't find any stats as to whether they are increasing or decreasing inside of Yellowstone. I have been told there is no monitoring of the black bears at all.
These are facts dealing with specifics, it is time to end trying to lump whole state elk numbers into one place to make it look better.
'This “trophic cascade” phenomenon moved one northwest Colorado rancher to shift his thinking on wolves after they moved into his lands. At first wary of the wolf’s impacts on cattle and elk herds, he now welcomes their presence after seeing how they apparently helped restore his dying aspen stands.'
This paragraph seems to assume that there is someplace in NW CO where wolves have established themselves, apparently for long enough to start affecting ungulate use of aspens.
There may be a "rancher" in NW CO who would LIKE for wolves to come to his place to help his aspens, but I don't think that it has really happened. I think you're referring to the owner of the High Lonesome Ranch, who hired a wolf researcher to work on his place after hearing about "trophic cascades":
http://www.newwest.net/city/article/colorado_rancher_says_wolves_may_have_arrived_welcomes_their_return/C8/L8/
Yes, Steve, teh sudies they ahve done show that each wolf takes from 1.8 to 2.3 elk per month, if you multiply it by the 100 that are now left in the wolf packs that is approximately 200 elk per month, or a little over 2000 per year. It has been considerably more until the wolves started killing each other.
Certainly all of the things that were impacting the elk prior to the wolves still are.
What the heck, they say an angry minority can move mountains -- and hunters are getting pretty darn miffed.
Elk herds are not in danger of being eradicated by wolves or griz, and Todd (et al) cannot explain why the Yellowstone ecosystem was swarming with big game when there were plenty of wolves at the same time, back during Lewis & Clark days.
Pressure on habitat and drought have had an impact on elk numbers and on calf survival rates. Dead calves cannot all be blamed on wolves or griz.
Wolf numbers react to a variety of factors -- availability and health of game, diseases, conflict with other wolves and Wildlife Services kills. Instead of exponential growth in wolf numbers (as predicted by people like Todd), numbers have varied and in some areas have gone down. Biology is complicated and not to be confused with petty Palinesque politics.
wolves are way over target populations. elk numbers are trending down. elk calf numbers are heading to single digits per 100 elk. those are facts.
idaho and montana have hunts and wyoming wishes it could.
the roller coaster management ride the usf and wildlife has us on will have to support more control for wolves.
Have you ever read the Lewis & Clark journals? Please show us in their daily entires where they encountered lots of wolves as they crossed what is now Montana...and the bounty of game you mention. Truth is, they nearly starved to death.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
It seems hysteria does swarm both sides of this issue. But for me, I have a question or two:
Wolf numbers have exceeded well beyond the stated recovery goals for de-listing. While the connectivity and genetic diversity issue remains rather subjective depending on who signs the checks or bangs the gavel, do you think it detrimental to the ESA to have an animal so iconic and so polarizing be the poster-child for an ES?
If env. and animal-rights groups continue to litigate when the state fish and game agencies say an animal is recovered, don't you think it's going to be incredibly difficult to get anything listed in the future?
Won't it be difficult to get public buy-in from those who are affected by the animals listed and the regulations that come with it?
Thanks
Would you agree to an open season on wolves from September through February with a legal tag OUTSIDE the park? The wolves are here to stay yet we really can't manage them. The wolf season in Montana closed the day after rifle season. The quotas are a joke.
I enjoy the wolves tremendously but it's time to manage them like we do any other predator and game animal. Name another animal that is as mismanaged as the wolf? I've been in southwest Montana all my life and I can tell you that there isn't any.
Humans are the problem...especailly those who feel wolves should be allowed to destroy whatever it takes for the wolves to flourish.
You are right, there are always parasites among most any and all living creatures. The problem with the tapeworm these wolves spread is that, while we did have a similar Echinoococcus tapeworm here before those Canadian wolves were released...the granulosus strain of tapeworm came along with them. And the disease they can spread can be contracted by humans. So, there you go. Maybe this is the USFWS "Final Solution" to eliminating humans from the landscape...leaving it all to the animals. Bet that would sure make you happy. Do you have story books that you read to your kids or grand kids that makes them look forward to the end as well?
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
Are the environmental groups misleading the people they are getting donations from and taking advantage of their stupidity?
Are the environmental groups abusing our justice system and making a fool of the judge?
Is this all just a scam so the environmental groups can cash in? This is all a scam isn't it?
I like wolves too but enough is enough.
You have been drinking too much DofW koolaid. They try to tell you fools that we just want to kill. We want to manage. How do you not get that? Do you not cut your grass when it gets too long? Think of all the rodents, bugs etc. that would prosper from you not mowing your lawn. YOU KILLER!!! Our neighborhood has feral cats. Can you come get them so we aren't forced to kill.......er... I mean manage them. Catshit stink, disease and the fact that I can't let my tame domestic cat out has become a problem. I lost a very nice kitty to these pests so please come get them quick. I'm sure you have a nice place for them.
I'm not sure how I can explain it more simply. The excuse of "killing" things is in your head and nobody elses. Not managing is no way to manage.
Curious, I think the ESA situation is going to continue as long as green groups are able to roll in the bucks from gullible city people who haven't a clue about any species except the propaganda they are fed. It is totally out of control. As long as there are judges like the 9th circuit in Missoula who are so in tune with environmental groups that they are unable to think beyond what those guys tell them we are doomed to any common sense returning. Million dollar non profit environmental groups have exploded in the last few years, it is a huge industry with virtually no oversight nor restrictions.
Common sense now tells us that when this "experimental" species of wolf was introduced, the USFWS and wolf Advocates including IF&G;, Montana FWP, have not an agenda of recovering a "Native" species, but instead are in the process of eliminating Hunting activities all together. No big game means no hunting.
People like myself and others are fed up with the spreading of useless propaganda like what is written in this article. If you believe this writer is sharing truth and has an accurate accounting of facts, you are mistaken.
Read the book from Mr. Will Graves titled "Wolves In Russia". He is a leading professional on wolves, and was one of the first to Question the motives behind this introduction. He wrote a letter to Mr. Ed Bangs stating that this species was not acceptable for the Northern Rockies, and that this species was a known carrier of E. Granulosus. Bangs simply ignored the advise of a professional wolf expert. Now over 60% of the wolves that roam the region are massively infected with E. Granulosus, as stated by Parasitologist William Foreyt from WSU, that of the 123 wolves he tested, they were infected with tens of thousands of tapeworms.
The facts you support are only of your own opinion. If you feel that such propaganda will better your cause to eliminate sport hunting, why not say so Mr. Welsch? Your attempted attack of what seems to be nothing more than an emotional based "Story line" on this final front of eco terrorism is weak, to say the least.
Kevin Watson
...and dave, sweetypie, you can't hold my "junior high comment" against me since this is just "journalism 101" for "junior jimmy olsons" like me.
It's funny how things play out when the facts are on your side...and the wolves just won't follow the script that the clueless greenies at Defenders of Wildlife wrote for them.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
can you read?
Sceince supports wolf's presence it affects everything from aspen/cottonwood sapling survival to sedimant streams from elk overbrowsing riparian areas etc.
but you don't beleive in science or facts or changing your mind in the face of evidence.
Large ecosystems are healthier with wolves than without.
That's a fact live with it right wing crazies.
Several comments have been closed in this thread for name-calling. If you can't engage here without resorting to blanket statements (including "right wing crazies" or "enviro elitists") then you aren't welcome here. These discussions are meant to be civil, respectful and open-minded. If want to yell at each other across an imaginary divide, send your application to one of the cable yelling programs.
See the site below for some tips on how to interact with each other:
http://www.newwest.net/plain/entry/20476/
Name me one of those large healthy eccosystems where humans are a part of that eccosystem...and where wolves run rampant.
Or do you follow the belief that all humans must be eliminated?
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/feb/17/actual-wolf-weights-often-skimpier-than-hunters/
These wolves are indeed native. Any wolf biologist will tell you so.
There are no credible records of wolves killing and eating North Americans; probably because they are huffing and puffing so hard to blow down the homes of porcine victims.
You don't read or research much do you? Even the data kept on the wolves released into Yellowstone reveals several wolves that were 138-139 pounds at the time of their release...and these are wolves that had been on the USFWS version of the South Beach Diet...receiving barely sufficient viddles while in captivity. Plus, you don't think USFWS went to the expense they did to bring in truly mature wolves of 8 to 10 years old do you? For what those wolves cost to dump here, they went with wolves of 4 to 6 years old...with some growing (and life) to go.
Yep, those wolves are native - to northern British Columbia, northern Alberta, and the Yukon. They are not native to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Wolf scientists (taxonomists) proved that long ago.
Hey, don't let the clueless Defenders of Wildlife do all of your research for you. Seek the truth man.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
http://www.yellowstone.net/wildlife/wolf.htm
This link contains a picture of the Pelican Valley wolf that tipped the scales at 143 lb.:
http://www.carnivoraforum.com/index.cgi?board=zoological&action=print&thread=4453
Meaningful comments only, eh, courtney?--and their meaningfulness will be decided on what bases?
According to Rachael, the average weight of the 188 wolves killed in Idaho between Sept. 1 and March 31 was under 100 pounds, helping dispel the rumors that Idaho had extraordinarily large wolves.
Toby, why haven't any big wolves been killed in Idaho? I didn't see any 140 lb wolves killed.
Rumors of 150-pound wolves abound in the Idaho Panhandle, but most of the wolves taken by hunters are much smaller.
Adult females averaged 86 pounds, according to Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials, who also included the weights of wolves struck by vehicles in the survey. For adult males, 101 pounds was the average.
The exception was a 130-pound adult male killed in Boundary County that was weighed after its stomach had been removed.
It’s not surprising that wolf weights get exaggerated, said Jim Hayden, Fish and Game’s regional wildlife manager in Coeur d’Alene.
“They look huge,” he said. “They’ve got long legs, big heads and lots of fur.”
Wolves have 2- to 4-inch-long guard hairs around their necks, reinforcing the impression of a bulky body, said Jason Husseman, a Fish and Game wolf biologist in Salmon, Idaho. People see wolves, compare them to their dogs, and estimate that the wolves weigh 150 pounds.
“It’s a human tendency to overestimate. You see the same thing with bear sightings,” Husseman said.
In actuality, wolves have the lean, rangy build of distance runners – an adaption that helps them chase down prey, he said.
Some opponents of wolf reintroduction claim that the Canadian gray wolves released in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s are a larger, more aggressive subspecies than native wolves, which were extinct by the 1930s. Biologists say there’s little or no evidence to back up that assertion.
While we don't police for "meaning" in these threads, we do police for general civility. We aren't interested in becoming the online version of Crossfire (pardon the slightly out-of-date reference). And, by "we" I mean me and the rest of the staff, with ample help from commenters and readers. We don't have time to review every thread so actually, most of the policing comes from commenters themselves -- alerting us to inappropriate comments or threads that are devolving.
Does that answer your question?
Courtney
Yes, as a matter of fact. Your response confirms my prejudice quite nicely.
Those of you reading this, Andy is surely spouting info from the Defenders of Wildlife wolf-lovers handbook. What separates one wolf subspecies from another is primarily their size...and the Canis lupus columbianus...Canis lupus occidentalis...and Canis lupus griseoalbus subspecies illegally (violating the Endangered Species Act) brought here by USFWS are all classified as "large wolves" - meaning at maturity, adult males commonly weigh 130 to 140 pounds (with some topping that). The wolf that was native here was Canis lupus irremotus, a "medium wolf" - meaning that at maturity, adult males commonly weighed 75 to 80 pounds.
Those who try to justify all the lies and deceit of the Wolf Recovery Project like to try and twist things around. But it was improtant enough to scientists of the past to identify each and every subspecies. "Wolf Experts" today must have surely gotten a lot lazier...wanting to lump all wolves together as the same wolf.
But that's more out of convenience than correction.
Hey Andy, you wouldn't be one of those questionable biologists with USFWS, just trying to cover your butt, would you? There's a lot of that going around these days.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
The exception was a 130-pound adult male killed in Boundary County that was weighed after its stomach had been removed.
Some young hunter also claimed he killed a 180 pound wolf, but never weighed it.
Uhm no Toby, all of this info comes straight from Idaho fish and game officials. Female wolves in Idaho average 86 pounds and male wolves averaged 101 pounds. So Toby, where are these big wolves in Idaho? Why is it you think these wolves are so huge when you never weighed one in your life? Exaggeration does not equal the truth Toby. What are those wolf scientists names who said that these wolves are much bigger non native canadian wolves???? I have not heard of 130-140 pound wolves in Idaho. Yes, some instances there are cases of bigger than usual wolves, but the fact still remains, Adult females averaged 86 pounds, according to Idaho Department of Fish and Game officials, who also included the weights of wolves struck by vehicles in the survey. For adult males, 101 pounds was the average. This comes straight from the Idaho fish and game, not dow. How do you explain that?
Thanks for a great bit of commentary calling for rational wolf management. I hope your reasonable approach to wolves is echoed by the rest of Greater Yellowstone Coalition. Fear mongering on both sides of the wolf issue is not productive. Let's move on and focus on how best to manage these native predators instead of getting hung up on silly things like tapeworms.
ingOn another note, I've never heard of anyone advocate for removing all of the "non-native" elk from Arizona and New Mexico. The native subspecies to the Southwest, Merriam's elk, went extinct long ago. They were slightly smaller but with larger antlers than the Rocky Mountain Elk they were replaced with. There's also almost no historical evidence for elk in Great Basin. Should we remove all the elk from Nevada too? Just a thought . . .
Dear Communications Director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Bozeman, Mont (CDFTGYCIBM):
Can you separate fact from fiction?
Wolves and the reintroduction of Wolves in the Rocky Mountains is a detriment to the greater good and foolishly wastes tax payers money and damages personnel property. Your position creates unnecessary hardship on folks that work the land; you steal wild game that can be harvested by needy families. It doesn’t make us anxious, it takes us away from our livelihood to argue in public debates against folks like you sir who are supplemented by a private fund. The entire debate in itself is pure folly concocted by folks that study wolves, write about wolves and follow wolves in the woods with antennas. Most derive a living, like you sir, by contributions from private organizations and/or the government.
The information you collect and disperse in your article is incomplete and bias and as always is presented by your type as scientific fact and by someone that is more informed.
Fact is brown rats and mosquito do not spread disease either depending how you information is collected. If you were clever enough and could concoct a living off of folks foolish enough to contribute money to this cause you would be protecting them too.
What a critical role they play in our ecosystem. We need them.
They cannot be eradicated either or exterminated permanently from an area without scentless poison. Aerial eradication with helicopters on radio collared packs is even more obscene-it is fraud waste and abuse of our public money!
Wolves are a type of vermin like a cockroach no greater than a brown rat or a mosquito. We do not care that they are apex predators high up on the food chain. Modern man can replace any perceived role this animal plays by managing the void either by increasing hunting tags on elk or managing forests to disperse elk and deer. In the same manner that has been practiced successfully over the previous one half century in the lower 48 this was until your type of public parasite entered the scene.
Suburban wolves? Let’s extend their populations there too. Reintroduce them to their historical ranges in say New York and downtown Bozeman?
Maybe create a little anxiety there too when your pet pony or favorite designer dog or cat is killed.
Suppressed fire management of our forests caused the drop in elk populations is as incomplete as your “wolves are here to stay argument”.
When you loss something of value, bought and paid for with your own hard earned money like livestock or your prized bull to this outrageous experiment, something that cost you something, you may change your informed position.
Wolves are here to stay… I wouldn’t count on it. The public outrage and backlash is a coming to you MR. CDFTGYCIBM..
Josh Woolman
we saw immence quantities of game in every direction around us as we passed up the river; consisting of herds of Buffaloe, Elk, and Antelopes with some deer and woolves.
Make no mistake: wolves co-existed with herd levels and overall biodiversity that are almost beyond our wildest imaginings today. Here's another on Montana from the return leg by Capt. Lewis, July 10, 1806 (the expedition had crossed the Bitteroots in June and Lewis' party was headed to the Great Falls and Maris River country):
saw vast herds of buffaloe in the evening below us on the river. we he[a]rd them bellowing about us all night. vast assemblages of wolves.
See http://www.mnh.si.edu/lewisandclark/index.html?loc=/lewisandclark/journal.cfm?id=984
Seems you purposely left out the times they were so short of game to hunt that they had to eat dogs with the native Indian tribes they encountered.
Please share with me the entries in their journals about wolves in as they crossed modern day Montana. I have reproductions of the journals to cross reference...please point me to the dates they talk about wolves...and how they peacefully coexisted with big game herds.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
"The exception was a 130-pound adult male killed in Boundary County that was weighed after its stomach had been removed.
Some young hunter also claimed he killed a 180 pound wolf, but never weighed it . "I HAVE NOT HEARD OF 130-140 POUND WOLVES IN IDAHO"."
Please pick one.
Oh really Richard...
Name me one of those large healthy eccosystems where humans are a part of that eccosystem...and where wolves run rampant.
Or do you follow the belief that all humans must be eliminated?
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
I'm sorry but this fella really is a right wing crazy.
I said "wolves make large ecosystems healthier" not "large, healthy ecosystems" which some how you twisted into a rant where you claim I want to remove humans from the land.
Your a liar, plan and simple you twist others words, make assumptions an are prejudiced towards anyone witha differing opinion.
The def. of a right wing crazy.
I don't know a sinlge enviro group that is dedicating to ening hunting like your website bellows and whails endlessly about.
Your nothnig but a hysterical liar.
PAGE REFERENCES from "The Global Biodiversity Assessment Report"
337
Ski Runs
350
Grazing of Livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses
351
Disturbance of the Soil Surface - Page 350 Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration
351
Fencing of Pastures or Paddocks
728
Agriculture
728
Modern Farm Production Systems
728
Chemical Fertilizers
728
Herbicides
728
Building Materials
730
Industrial Activities
730
Human-Made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel
730
Paved and Tarred roads, highways, rails (page 351)
730
Railroads
730
Floor and Wall Tiles
733
Aquaculture
733
Technology Improvements
733
Farmlands, Rangelands
733
Pastures, Rangelands
733
Pastures
733
Fish Ponds
733
Plantations
738
Modern Hunting
738
Harvesting of Timber
749
Logging Activities
728
Fossil Fuels - Used for driving various kinds of machines
755
Dams, Reservoirs, Straightening Rivers
757
Power Line Construction
763
Economic systems that fail to set a proper value on the environment
763
Inappropriate Social Structures
763
Weaknesses in Legal and Institutional Systems
766, 838
Modern Attitudes toward nature - Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions
767, 782
Private Property
771
Population Growth - Human Population Density
773
Consumerism
774
Fragmentation of Habitat - cemeteries, derelict lands, rubbish tips, etc.
774
Sewers, Drain Systems, Pipelines
783
Land use that serves human needs
969
Fisheries
970
Golf Courses
970
Scuba Diving
728
Synthetic drugs
990
Fragmentation - Agricultural development, Forestry Urbanization (impervious surfaces)
"Large ecosystems are healthier with wolves than without."
Come on boy, get it right...after all...you said it.
Federal and state wildlife agencies are the liars here...they lied about their intended goals...they lied about the wolf they dumped here...they lied about the impact wolves have on other wildlife and livestock...they lie about the dangers of the hydatid deisease spread by wolves...and they have continued to lie about the true number of wolves. Now, it's catching up with them. Each one of those bricks in that wall of lies and deceit are about to come raining down on them.
These agencies and you greenies have run out of ammo to defend wolves, which fit into the Northern Rockies ecosystem about as well as a square peg in a round hole. Despite the claims of this being a "Conservation Success Story", it is playing out to be the "Greatest Ecological Disaster" of our lifetimes.
Got some turkey hunting to do...so you all scrap it out here...and while you're doing that, sportsmen will be putting a lot of pressure on state senators and representatives, not to mention governors, to get a handle on this situation. Hell, they already are...and the tide of sentiment is turning quickly against the wolf.
The worst enemy the animal has are the pro-wolfers and environmental groups which have pushed the envelope a bit too far.
See you all in a couple of weeks...time to get out and enjoy some of the outdoors.
Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH
WOW….you and the communications director make a great tag team.
I wonder who created that document, probably another informed factual individial sucking on the UN tit.
Back to Lewis and Clark-In 1805 the population of the US was 6.5million today its roughly 300million.(we don’t really have a good handle on that number either) Overloading the Environment-every human born constitutes a draft on all aspects of the environment: food, air, water, forests, beaches, wildlife, scenery and solitude. If we satisfy a growing population's need for food, we necessarily decrease its per capita supply of the other resources needed by men.
That’s a fact.
If you want to promote biodiversity we need to stabilize our population but then you’ll have to address more sticky subjects like controlled immigration and birth control. You can
Oh my, let’s just dump more predators on already over taxed environment. Let’s not create migratory travel corridors to wintering grounds for elk and deer or try and preserve and acquire more public open spaces and wilderness. But let us just create a public nightmare with wolves, split up our common ground and argue about native species and biodiversity before every opportunity is gone and it’s too late.
You wolf advocates have created a very bad public relations nightmare with your false reporting of wolves numbers, breeding pairs and predation data and have created a situation where good conservationists, some sportsmen and ranchers and farmers don’t want to be associated with anything you stand for.
Big wolves, little wolves, native wolves, imported wolves, I am going hunting but its not for turkeys.
I am going steelhead fishing!
Josh Woolman
I don't support the report. The information shared shows the final text of agreements negotiated by governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It is reality, it is being implemented in America, as anyone can research and see Modern Hunting is not sustainable according to the report. The wolf agenda is just one piece of the puzzle being used to remove the right to hunt. This political agenda is known as sustainable development.
But in the case of wolves in the Rockies, have the efforts of humans resulted in giant, disease ridden, rapaciously hungry foreigners? I don't think so. Was it a good idea to reintroduce them? Again I don't think so. But my opinion has nothing to do with the wolves themselves, but rather with the people who have revealed themselves through this issue.
You know, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for some of the hunters to contract brucellosis.
Tapeworms, give me a break. I'm not in the habit of eating dog or coyote or fox or wolf feces, so I'm safe. Complete red herring hysteria from the black helicopter crowd.
Canadian wolves as a separate species from Montana's? Again, give me a break. These are animals that can and do cover 50 miles overnight without even batting an eyelash if they decide to wander. To say that they somehow didn't cover hundreds of miles spanning the British Columbia/Montana border through history is ridiculous. If you believe otherwise, you know nothing about wolves. Same species, same animals, travelling long distances.
As Lewis and Clark traversed the ENTIRE state of Montana, they constantly recorded wolves as being ever-present, following immense game herds. Check your journals again.
We can supply dead or alive. A wolf is a wolf is a wolf. Even in Enviro clothing.
How many would you like America? We have a large wolf surplus.
And a shortage of game except in urban areas, where few wolves tread.
Nothing like a good ungulate vs wolf story to get the blood flowing. Managed yes, extinct never.
Arctos
Take the Junco (in the finch family) for instance. We once had Oregon Juncos, Slate-headed Juncos and Dark-eyed Juncos. Now we know they are ALL Dark-eyed Juncos.
Then again I may have wasted my time posting science and reason (since it doesn't fit the agenda of either side in the wolf issue.)
Satrsky knows what's up!
The problem is, there are those in the arena who find all of the above not only acceptable, but a desired outcome. Period. Some of them post here. Period. That they do so anonymously proves it. Period.
Wolves create a healthy situation by dispersing undulates into wider areas of the forest preventing them from concentrating in any one given area where you have over grazing and the destruction of riparian areas and aspen groves are less impacted.
Wolves remove the weak and diseased elk and can discriminate between healthy prey and unhealthy prey culling out the unhealthy and generically inferior, therefore creating a healthier herd eliminating to some degree the spread of disease. This is a good thing, why would anyone oppose it?
We have some very intelligent individuals in this debate and I appreciate reading everyone’s comments. Josh and Lobo man need to find a better place to release their anger.
Science does support the wolves’ presence and I am a sportswoman and I love to hear the howl of the wolf.
The Norris/Firehole herd is nearly extinct and may be completely extinct by the time the winter is over.
As for disease the brucellosis has actually increased, probably due to fresh bloody tissue being carried around and spread from place to place. On top of that the elk herds are now infected to varying degrees with Echinococcus granulosus, carried by the wolves.
Ranchers who want to control wolves are not bad anymore than you would be if you got rid of termites if they invaded your home.
The wolves are skinny, mangey, and killing each other for territory.
Sorry, but that is the way the situation is now.
A study released a year ago shows that the elk are run so constantly that the cows are not even getting pregnant and are in very poor shape.
The problem is those who were calling the shots on the introduction either ignored or missed the fact that only 56 adults and 80 pups were documented being killed during the 42 years that a bounty was paid on them. That most certainly would not indicate that the park could stand an onslaught like introducing so many wolves all at once.
All of the factors affecting elk survival were in effect prior to the wolves being brought in, yes they do have an effect and they did prior to the wolves.
What are 700 pounds, 3 feet tall and out to get you? Would you believe PIGS? Ladies and gentlemen, you may scoff, you may doubt, but I cannot urge you enough to BELIEVE because according to a Discovery Channel Web site tag line, the global pig epidemic is “crossing borders and creating an international wave of terror.” See the link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7264865/?GT1=6305
The show is called “Pig Bomb.” Found on the good ol’ Discovery Channel, this show outlines the major crisis slowly taking over, apparently, the entire world: wild pigs. According to the Discovery Channel Web site, the “introduction of Russian boars into the wild pig gene pool may be causing a new kind of super pig.” And this “super pig” is multiplying faster than any of us can imagine. And that’s not even the worst part!
150lb Canadian Wolves introduced into a predator free Yellowstone environment with domesticated elk and surrounding fenced cattle to eat at will. Folks that approve of the wolf no matter how good their initial intentions, are enemies of the state. Once they have taken a stronghold we are in trouble, if we cannot poison them and eradicate them while their numbers are still relatively low. We are not going to be able to control them with liberal college professors running the show within the government or the state fish and game department expanding there departments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX5f01Qf3yU
You good rocky mountain folks should get your act together soon and stop the biodiversity radicals in their tracks now!
But wolves all too often are the scapegoat for lack of elk hunter success. Even in areas where elk numbers have dropped, wolves are not the only factor -- and in most cases they're not the primary factor.
For example, research has shown that drought is likely a cause of declining elk calf survival in the Sunlight-Crandall elk herd near Cody. In addition, study has found that grizzly bears kill up to 60 percent of the elk calves taken by predators, while wolves kill between 14 to 17 percent, and coyotes kill up to 11 percent.
You got to rid yourself of these super aggressive wolves quick before it’s too late. The elk and deer aren’t used to these super killers (the little US wolves that are long gone) and these up north critters are goin take more game than you intended and spread unnatural international disease.
I think that about wraps it up Mike. You people in the Rocky Mountains keep your wits.
Take another look at these monsters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX5f01Qf3yU
I support wolf management. We have too many wolves. We don't need wolves hanging around towns and eating our pets.
The above story is propaganda posing as the truth to the other side's propaganda.
What are you - PMS'ing???
Ungulates and carnivores evolved together. At this late date, the mammalian ones have become quite cursorial.
If the elk are not surviving, it's probably because livestock introduced brucellosis to the area years ago - or the hunters have picked off all the prize members of the herd and left the less-stocky ones for the wolves.
You need to get a life.
vernon getzler
<a >camper trailers</a>
hello members please reply on this topic..
Yellowstone/Wyoming already had every single predator living and killing there, just like they did in the early years when it was discovered. For instance the Washburn Expedition did not mention a single wolf, but the did mention lions a lot. Lt. Doane kept an extensive list of the flora and fauna.
My biggest concern is the impact of so many wolves on the other carnivores, namely grizzly in particular. The griz are omnivores, but their other food sources are being impacted a lot with the loss of whitebark pines for fall fattening. There is no longer any winter kill lying around when they come out of hibernation, the elk calves are at all time lows becasue the elk numbers are so low and now their pregnancy rate seems to have been impacted by the constant chasing wolves do.
You simply cannot judge the fact that wolves and elk evolved together, they were doing just that when enironmentalists stepped in and overwhelmed the system with far more wolves than had ever been documented in Yellowstone.
Can you find any evidence of any number of wolves killed in Yellowstone other than the 56 adults and 80 pups killed over 42 years? Those are the numbers in the records. Since they were paid a bounty for killing wolves, it is unlikely that anyone hid a kill.
“The largest wolf on record was a male Alaskan wolf (Canis lupus pambasileus) which weighed 175 pounds. This is the largest wolf subspecies (up to 3 feet tall at the shoulder), but this individual was exceptional - they normally weigh no more than 130 pounds, occasionally up to 150. There is considerable variation in size across wolf subspecies, with more northerly populations usually being larger than more southerly ones.”
Source(s):
• According to Wikipedia:
"The heaviest wild wolf on record, killed in Alaska in 1939, was 80 kg (175 lb)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onlin…
“The animal's remains were exhumed in early 2005 and studied by Dr. Oz Katz and his associate Dr. Roi Lerner from MIT for a documentary. In March 2005, these scientists confirmed that Hogzilla actually weighed 800 pounds (360 kg) and was between 6.9 feet (2.1 m) and 8.6 feet (2.6 m) long, diminishing the previous claim. DNA testing was performed, revealing that Hogzilla was a hybrid of wild boar and domestic swine (Hampshire breed).[2] However, compared to most wild boars and domestics, Hogzilla is still quite a large and extraordinary specimen.[3]”
You people need to be lazor beam focused not narrow minded to fight this “wolf bomb”.
If you want to go scientific?
"You don't read or research much do you? Even the data kept on the wolves released into Yellowstone reveals several wolves that were 138-139 pounds at the time of their release."
Where is this data? What was the average weight of those from Alberta, from British Columbia?
Idaho:
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wpages/1995idahowolves.htm
The largest wolf released in Idaho weighed 135 pounds.
The average for the ADULTS reintroduced over the two years was 101 pounds.
As of Jan. 2009 the largest wolf in Yellowstone NP was a 143 pound male.
Since the average life expectancy of wolves is 6-10 years it would not make much sense to release 8-10 year old adult wolves.
Check out the wolves in Denali NP. Their life expectancy is 3-4 years . heaviest 135 #, and average 95 pounds.
Perhaps by the same fellow who has been taking snapshots of Sasquatch?
But we are supposed to believe these same people could have located a pack or a pair of wolves back in the wilderness without collars when they didn't want to find any?
By the way I read that the DNA on the wolf killed jsut outside of the park by the coyote hunter did not have DNA that matched anything and it was a 2 year old, so it obviously had come from parents with a different set of genes and recently. As for missing a pack with all of the flying they have done since the introduction, remember a few years ago the previously "Unknowns" showed up and displaced one of the packs in the Lamar? They then went back to where ever they came from.
According to Chase a pack of wolves was photographed in the park in 1960, but they disappeared again to?????
As for living with wolves why did the folks who wanted them so badly not introduce them where they live, mean people wiped them out there too.
This issue isn't about pro-wolf versus anti-wolf; this is about meddling by over zealous wolf lovers in an already balanced ecosystem.
This saddens me because now we got all these wolf hatters. It is not right. Shame on you.
We got to find a way to get their numbers down and maybe start all over with the indigenous (original) wolves.
I am sure we can find some don't you think? Unless the (Canadians) have wiped them out.
I will agree with you 100% that wolves belong in the wilderness and that is why I feel it was wrong to uproot them from the wilderness where they lived and haul them to inhabited areas.
Well that about proves it, I have been wasting my time arguing against a bunch of hemp smoking druggers and their capon offspring.
“The wolves are here to stay” well that is a real risky statement, seeing the federal government and the three states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming make it illegal to kill wolves 99% of the time.
Law abiding citizens allowed the wolf to come back to these ridiculous numbers right as the “wolf bomb” is exploiting and the federal government slinks out of the picture because the problem is almost completely unmanageable.
We have had to stand idly by as predators kill our livestock or try to protect them and potentially face criminal prosecution.
Plans call for trapping the wolves and putting radio collars around their necks to track their whereabouts doesn’t work. The Band-aid on the bigger problem of predation issues continues to get worse unless the Legislature acts to make changes.
When the state legislature finally changes it course and puts more common sense laws in place your law abiding citizens we’ll “make sure the wolves are not here to stay”
We’ll legally trap them, poison them, shoot them from the ground and from hilltops and remove them in a hundred one ways. You watch just like our wise forefathers did once upon a time.
When their gone you unemployed wolf watchers can study how the elk herds increase. When elk and deer numbers are back in Yellowstone you can invent whatever reasons you want to explain their return. We won’t pay any attention to you anymore because you won’t be affecting our livelihoods. ..
The political pendulum swings back and forth and you fools are going to be on the short end.
You “middle of the roaders” who don’t help either side and think some wolves are good can take a hike.
This is my last entry on this blog!
Please take your fight elsewhere and remember when commenting here in the future to at least attempt to be civil and respectful in your discussions with others.