Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Idaho = wolves ALMOST everywhere

DPOLE do you know much about the size of the Yukon Wolf versus the NW territories speices?

I'd be interested in what you learn.

From what I can tell, geography on a continental scale is a non-issue or minor issue wrt genetics.

From the first ref, emphasis mine:

"The phylogenetic tree of mtDNA genotypes can also reveal evidence of geographic subdivision (Fig. 5). In small vertebrates that have poor dispersal ability, the phylogenetic relationships of mitochondrial DNA genotypes from different populations often correspond to the physical distance between the populations or to the presence of geographic barriers31,32. The greater the geographic distance, the larger the genetic divergence. In gray wolves and coyotes, the relationship between genotypes did not reflect the geographic distance between localities. Closely-related coyote genotypes were found in regions as distant as California and Florida (for example, Cl and C14, Fig. 5) and distantly related genotypes were found at a single locality in southern California (for example, Cl and C7). This result supports the idea that gene flow is a force that homogenizes genetic variation, perhaps across large parts of the continent, but these findings also cast doubt on the validity of the dozen or more subspecies described for both species. The subspecies differences, which are based on pelage or skeletal morphology, may reflect inadequate sampling, rapid evolution of specific ecotypes through selection, or differences in food supply33. The molecular genetic evidence suggests that these phenotypic differences do not signify a long history of genetic isolation."

I'm just going to weigh in briefly here. I have worked with state and federal fish and game professionals. In my experience, many are dedicated employees but few are top flight scientists.

There are objectivity problems in modern environmental science. The universities that teach fish and game biologists are not immune from the influence of politics or philosophy (like the "deep green" environmental view). Inevitably, an issue like delisting a species is not simply a function of good science... it is a battle over competing political and philosophical interests. This is because the issue to list (or delist) a species as endangered (or threatened) is a largely subjective decision. Unfortunately, there are wildlife biologists who would not support delisting wolves no matter the data. There would always be one more reason to delay, one more study to conduct, one more hearing to hold, etc. I have dealt with this dynamic, though not with wolves.

I appreciate the suggestion of producing research to counter biased governmental studies. This poses several problems. One, it is expensive to do wildlife biology. This means a private, nonprofit organization like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation must underwrite the work. Two, government scientists are no different than anyone else. They can be defensive when challenged and tend to dismiss work from the private sector as "biased." If ranchers underwrite a study on the impact of wolves, I suspect officials from USF&W would be quick to denigrate the research based on the funding source. That, my friends, is politics... not science.

As a hunter and outdoorsman, I am willing to accept the verdict of good science when it comes to managing game populations. Unfortunately, there isn't enough good science. We have too many wildlife biologists who act as impassioned advocates rather than dispasionate scientists. We have too many special interest (hunters included) who want to put a thumb on the scale.

Logcutter,

The reasons that I want to know where you got the description of the subspecies and the editorial are that I want to see how old the info is and if there are other pertinent clues in the remaining text, such as why the editorial writer feels that the introduced wolves were nubilus. It is my understanding that nubilus was the small "plains wolf" aka "buffalo wolf". They have been thought to be extinct. Maybe the guy was attacking the AP without the right facts? Some folks think Minnesota's wolves are more closely related to the plains wolves than to the eastern timber wolf. The species description shows me that there were samples of irremotus from 1916, and they may still have them. I've read that "one native wolf was shot at Fox Park in 1992" and that "there clearly was at least one native wolf in central Idaho. He paired with Idaho number B15F to form the now "....."Kelly Creek Pack"......"Several native wolves from the nine-mile pack have now migrated to northern Idaho." (Quoted from an editorial from a pro-wolf org. Titled Federal district judge says central Idaho and Yellowstone wolves must be removed! ) www.forwolves.org/ralph/downes1.htm (Be ready for a pro-wolf take on the subject.)

It looks to me like there should have been opportunity to take recent samples of "native" wolves, if they were wanted. The question remains; Were they different from the intros?

The reason I want to know exactly where the introduced wolves came from is because of where the subspecies' ranges overlap. I got Hall's Classification (1981) map off of another forum. I'm trying to find newer info, and I know that some of the boundaries have changed. If Hall's map is correct, you can see why "Western Alberta" (the place I read the wolves came from) doesn't narrow it down enough. The Feds should have samples of the introduced wolves anyway, so could clear it up.

FWIW and IIRC, in reading the entire journals of Lewis and Clark, they refered to the plains wolf as being large. At least it's worth revisiting their journals and gleaning more info. I would think the wolves should have been large as the journal entries refer to the buffalo being taken by wolves on a common basis.

I recently was on a muzzle loader hunt for elk and of course the bugling season was long gone but there were sounds of elk every night. As has been said here earlier, the elk are trying to stay in touch with each other during the night raids of wolves.

IMO, this gathering of info pertaining to the genetic make up of wolves is interesting but it doesn't help solve the problem at hand. I'm not throwing stones but the problem with the loss of salmon in the Northwest was studied to death and we're still no further along than we were 30 years ago.

Maybe you heard about a guy in Florida who stupidly went swimming at 4 AM and a 12'--600# aligator almost killed him. For years the aligator was a protected species I seem to remember and now since there are no 'natural predators' (man) the #s are to the point where society is finally waking up. Same will happen to the wolf when he decides a man is pretty easy prey when the back packers enter the wolf's domain. Wait and see ? The evidence is there. Elk are not important enough now for cries from the public but wait till a man, woman or child is torn to pieces. Don't think anyone will give a dam what the genetics of the wolf pack is.

It won't change anything if people get chomped. The data is there to show that cessation of hunting of cougars in CA resulted in many attacks and several deaths and yet a story in the major media stating the opposite was circulated. From what I've seen people really don't care if a jogger, mountain biker, kid, or five of each get eaten as long as cougars don't get hunted. I don't imagine it will be any different with wolves. Hard core greenies don't really like their fellow humans all that much.

If what you say is fact then it's a sad commentary for our civilization. Come to think of it, that could be an oxymoron.

"You may never know what results come from your action but if you do nothing, there will be no results"

NOt much. Just what one can google. Googling the subspecies seems to be working good.

http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfSpecies/north_america.html

I was hoping that logcutter would tell me where he got that species description so I could answer this question with his source <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I found where the Hall's subspecies map came from.
http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/intro.htm
I originaly got the map from another forum. It was presented by itself, without the companion map, and there was no reference cited. But I found it anyway. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Mostly just what one can google. http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfSpecies/north_america.html

I found a link to that subspecies map. http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/intro.htm

[color:"brown"] Excellent. I was planning on looking there someday. I'm reading Teddy Roosevelt's The Wilderness Hunter where he talks about hunting wolves. He loved hunting them with dogs. He describes the wolves in the chapter Wolves and Wolf Hounds . excerpts: "....long-toothed giants of their race that dwell in the heavily timbered mountains of the northwest and in the far north." "The difference even among the different sections of our own country is very notable. It may be true that the species as a whole is rather weaker and less ferocious than the Europeon wolf; but it is certainly not true of wolves of certain localities. The great timber wolf of the central and northern chains of the Rockies and coast ranges is in every way a more formidable creature than the buffalo wolf of the plains, although they integrade. The skins and skulls of the wolves of northwestern Montana and Washington that I have seen were quite as large, and showed quite as stout teeth as the skins and skulls of Russian and Scandinavian............A full grown dog-wolf of the northern Rockies, in exceptional instances, reaches a height of thirty-two inches and a weight of 130 pounds; A big buffalo wolf of the upper Missouri stands thirty or thirty-one inches at the shoulder and weighs about 110 pounds; A Texan wolf.......eighty pounds."
[/color]



[color:"brown"]I completely agree. [/color]

Fellas,

I just watched a Discovery channel special on the Sawtooth pack of wolves in northern Idaho. Seems they were brought in in 1990 and released on Nez Peerce land in 1996.

A couple of impressions:
1. Them things were big. Looked to be 100 lbs judging from the size of the people involved.
2. Looked like big fluffy furballs as presented by Jim and Jamie Treehugger. The Treehuggers were playing with them, getting licked and allowed to visit their dens. All told - an absolutely false impression of wildlife. Typical of treehugger cinema. The world will be shocked when the Treehuggers get mauled trying to play with other wolves. Reminds me of the Grizzly Man.
3. I'm not sure the date of the production but voice guy claims their are only 200 wolves in all of YNP. It must be older.

All told, a clueless group portraying a wild animal as cute, cuddly, hameless, innocent creature that has been extermnated at the hands of evil man. It sickens me greatly to see this stuff.

-- BW

Lots of wolves in Upper Michigan also. The DNR has decided that they have exceeded the 'social carrying cappacity'. That is a two dollar word meaning 'folks are whacking them'. This past deer season 6 have been documented killed and suspects located in three cases.

Apparently these wolves wore radio collars and the shooter failed to turn the collar off. This could be accomplished the same way the wolf was turned off.

Yes, I saw that, too. I caught the last 30 minutes of it. I really watched it thinking there would be a "footnote" stating that later, the treehuggers went back to the wilderness and were mauled to death by the wolves. Oh, well. That never happened.

I agree with you... those things were HUGE. They were made to look so cute and cuddly. I wonder why they never showed them eating? I guess it's because they were being fed IAMS for the first 5 years. I would like to have seen them show a kill for food then another kill for "sport." That would make for better TV. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Yes, I saw that, too. I caught the last 30 minutes of it. I really watched it thinking there would be a "footnote" stating that later, the treehuggers went back to the wilderness and were mauled to death by the wolves. Oh, well. That never happened.

I agree with you... those things were HUGE. They were made to look so cute and cuddly. I wonder why they never showed them eating? I guess it's because they were being fed IAMS for the first 5 years. I would like to have seen them show a kill for food then another kill for "sport." That would make for better TV.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I saw them in person and close up..They are huge and very intimdateing in postier!Two were more like 150 pounds....


I have nothing against the Wolf but they need to be controlled in some manner rather being pushed into towns and ranches for feed because of lack of territory available with the growing packs.They are out of control now and a guy faces a felony protecting his family and property on goverment land if your actions are not approved in protecting what is yours or in self defense by there investigation of the crime scene.

Jayco

'Cartoon' wolves are no different than how most animals and the animal world in general is portrayed. Be it a Regal Elk, a Wiley Whitetail, or a Cuddly Wolf - it's all in one's head. I don't lose any sleep over the color of someone else's imagination.

Wolf Battlefields:
http://science.discovery.com/tvlistings/...amp;channel=SCI

Well, I guess I'm in for a wait. I'm waiting on replies ( if I found the correct email ads) from Bergerud, Kay, and several wildlife folks I know (one in NW Montana) who might be able to help me. I'm looking forward to what waha might send me and learning of logcutter's references. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I have lots of papers to find from various sources.

Huskyrunnr,
If I come to any decisive conclusions, I will PM you.

Happy Days!

It's not a wolf problem. It's a government problem! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

What we need is elected state governments willing to stand up and tell big brother to go [bleep] himself! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I've not received anything from waha or logcutter, so I guess I'm on my own.

The introduced wolves appear to be from at least two places, Alberta, and British Columbia. If one were held to Hall's subspecies maps, it may be evidence that two subspecies of wolves were introduced, which would mean at least one subspecies was stocked upon.

Wolves from both Alberta and British Columbia are called "Mackenzie Valley" wolves by some authorities, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_reintroduction so if one dismissed Hall's work, and followed the Mackenzie Valley subspecies thinking, there may only be one subspecies involved.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackenzie_Valley_Wolf



<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />I'll probably have to rely on future genetics testing, for as has been said, the small sample sizes and old methods have resulted in great disagreement on subspecies occurence and mapping.

A legal decision may decide the introduced vs "native" thing soon. The court case I was writing of has been presented "July 29 A panel of three judges is slated to hear arguments on this date at the Tenth U.S. District Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado"

I found the above info in several places, but it is summed up fairly well on this pro-wolf site:
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/wolf/ynpchro.html

Try and find a good place to hunt where there are not wolves!!!I couldn't get the whole state in but from where I live at the top of the map to Boise...


Jayco