Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Wolves in Idaho.....

You're confused again. Did you take your vitamins?

At some time there were probably a lot more fawns that did not lie still in tall grass. Were they weak. Of course not, they just did not have the genetics to evade as well. Those genetics are gone. Are the animals left more healthy. Of course not. They are just different. Wolves and bears acquired the behaviors needed to find the the newly adapted fawns. Did the fawns suddenly become weak. Of course not, they are just experiencing adaptive pressure.

DPole,
The Federal District Court was overturned by the Circuit Court. The District Court worded its decision wrong, and was corrected by the Circuit Court (actually was sent back for the District Court to have another try at it).

The argument was about designating the northern Montana population as "Experimental". That population was a naturally a occurring population and could not be legally considered an Experimental population under the language of the ESA. The concern was that it would be impossible to tell visually the difference between individuals of the restored vs the northern Montana populations--because they are identical in appearance
The Threatened status of the northern population trumps the Experimental status of the Yellowstone/Idaho populations.

The court said if the feds couldn't make the distinction, then the restored population would interfere with the naturally occurring population. Turns out, the info provided to the court had been debunked by the feds, and the court misunderstood it. When the argument was articulated more clearly to the Circuit Court, they reversed. In fact, the plaintiffs didn't put up much of a fight in the appeals.

The assumption at the time was the restoration effort was going to take much longer than it has, and there would be more oportunity of a conflict in identifying the two populations. With the delisting now a reality, that is no longer a concern. Interestingly enough, there has been mimimal amount of dispersal in the direction of Glacier NP and the northern population from the Yellowstone populations--'cause the Yellowstone wolves have dispersed in every other direction with zeal............

I'm not sure if there the northern population is still under any classification, but the packs seem to spend a most of time within Glacier....


Casey

Wolves are here to stay, along with plenty of elk--deal with it.

DPole, you didn't prove anything. Are you kidding me?

That's an excuse, not proof.


This isn't much better. I only read part of one of the papers. You're right. They are written terribly but that doesn't prove that they're right or wrong.



I know it isn't much, but at least I know something about the education of biologists. The ironic part was not meant to say I am the world's expert in biology, it was meant to show that I am studying to become something that I often butt heads with.



Some did, and some can't. A lot of my fellow undergrads were straight from the city and had never been around any predators. Most were good people, but clueless about the difference between different sign left by animals. Many of them are now employed with IDFG, MFWP and various federal agencies. With JUST a BS. Maybe A BS isn't just crap anymore.
I said "a predation investigator should, especially on fresh kills". This is an opinion. I should have made that clearer. But honestly...I'll be willing to bet that the majority of the public (pro or anti) would agree with this.

Thank you. It is apparently very hard to get into. I talked to a professor the other day and he said people have an easier time getting into Yale wildlife programs than U of M. We will see.

I never said you did. That's why I said "First, you make it sound like all wolves in ID and MT between the 1920's and 1995". The way I read your post, it sounded like you meant all wolves in ID/MT prior to the reintro were immigrant wolves from Canada. I typed 1920's because I took a guess as to when the native pop was reduced to ridiculously low levels. All I am saying is that apparently the native ID/MT wolves were never completly extirpated. At least that is how I interpreted what you wrote.



Fun isn't it? I'll have to get back to you on that one. I know I read it somewhere. Maybe on a anti-wolf site. How much fun could we have with that? Seriously though, I'll look for it. I also know several outfitters who spotted them in the 50's and 60's in both the Frank Church and the Selway, but of course you won't take anyone's word. It has to be from a "scientific study". Those could have been immigrants as well...who knows.
To be fair here, the natural immigrant wolves (I would think) would be about the same size as the indigenous animals to MT/ID. Unless they immigrated from northern Canada. Right? I mean once a Shiras (Wyoming) moose steps across the border to Canada does it then become a Canadian moose and not a shiras? One is generally bigger than the other. Again Bergmanns rule may be at work. Do taxonomists classify Shiras, Canadian and Alaskan/Yukon moose as 3 different subspecies? or is it just the game books? I honestly don't know. That's why I am asking. I guess the same thing applies to wolves in this argument. I don't know if it hurts or helps my argument, it just came to mind.


All right. What are we arguing about this for? The way I see iit we are agreeing on this. He says "Some people say that wolves used to be smaller than the reintroduced ones, but little evidence supports this claim. However, animal body size tends to increase at the northern parts of their range and is related to staying warm." These two statements contradict themselves. He certainly dosen't prove one way or another. What does "little evidence" mean? The second statement is referring to Bergmann's rule again and that is a generally accepted theory. I think even you, DPole would agree with that.


You are actually making sense here. I can't prove it, nor do I deny it. I am saying that since my trusted old timer locals say these new wolves are much bigger than the ones they killed for bounty I believe they are "different". I liken it to bringing Americans to China and saying they are native to China. Both are homo sapiens , just not the same type of people as far as I am concerned. One is supposedly taller than the other. Bad example I know but do you know what I mean?




We have already discussed this. That is strictly an opinion that I will bet most people will agree upon.


I already am getting a good laugh. I appreciate your support for my application. I don't know if I covered everything. You got jumped on the internet by some kid? Sorry buddy, you argued your way into this one as much as anyone else. My head is starting to spin. No I have only had a couple of beers. Arguing is fun huh? Take care.

That is inconsequential to what I wrote.

Thank you sir.

Dog_Hunter,

Ok, so you can't "prove" anything that you wrote. Pot calling the kettle black? If you are going to blast me, accusing me of never being able to "back up" what I wrote and then changing it to "proof, you better be able to do the same. Level playing ground and all that.

You accused me of never "backing anything up." I asked you to be specific, which you did. But, you changed the words "back up" to "proof"; very different things. To ask me to prove a negative to whatever level of proof you demand, based on the evidence on the web site mentioned, is nearly impossible because the evidence to PROVE the negative is certainly not on that site. However, I can provide fair evidence that the photos/story is unlikely to be true, based on all of our opinions of those photos. Same with the paper. This is why I invited everyone to examine that evidence for themselves. Now, you have agreed that the bear "looked small", and that the paper "was written terribly", although there were many other things wrong with it. But you insist on "proof." I suggest that you sit sit back with the evidence I provided, call it backup, not proof, and accept the fact that your original statement that I never back anything up as wrong. When a paper looks bogus to me, I don't accept the conclusions. Many years of pear review have shown me the neccessity. Did you check the references to see if the author presented them correctly? Did the references really back up (provide evidence) what the author claimed? We learn to check these things as we gain experience. When I earned my first BS, in Wildlife Management from the U of M, I pretty much believed every paper I read, if I found it in a major publication. These days, I peruse them carefully.

Demanding that I "prove" natural selection, is quite a request. As a biologist, you should have already been taught these things, and I assume you are simply throwing another difficulty at me, you know, to make me spend a couple of days preparing a technical paper up to your inspection and review standards. It ain't gonna happen, but nice try. If you want back-up, that is a different story. I could provide you with many references that discuss natural selection, fitness, evolution, etc., but you already know that.



This is only one small place where the subject is mentioned. I thought that the regional manager of what was it, the Clearwater Region, in Idaho might hold more sway for you, as you were smartassing my "infinite wisdom". By saying that wolves vary in size according to lattitude, I suspect that he was leaving open the possibility that resident wolves were indeed smaller. You might reread it. I think he's saying just what he said: there is little evidence, but it is possible. There is tons of info out there for you to find. I hope you belong to at least one professional wildlife org. and get their publications if you are trying to get into the UofM grad school. Its darn near required and you want to show that you are keeping up with the science. The facts are that it has not been shown to be true that the intro wolves were different species, subspecies, like is sometimes claimed. Most pros don't even accept a size difference, as you read above.

In the world of biology and the professions involved, you are a kid. Accept it. There is nothing wrong with it, but you will "get better" if you stick with it. I was there once too. In fact, its fun to see a wide-eyed, eager, full of iss and vinegar young guy stretching his legs. Kinda like watching a sticky kid taking his first steps. WE all start out that way, ready to change the world. Go get 'em!

Go right to grad school; skip extra bachelors degrees. The master's will be the ticket. BSs are looked on nowdays much like a high school degree was when I started. Just a fact, not an insult. I got to my position without the doctorate, but you may need it, as the requirements are growing.

From now on, if you would like to discuss in a more technical fashion with references that provide good evidence (sometimes proof), I guess I could do that. But I'll expect the same from you. You will probably need the practice if you continue your schooling and plan on writing or researching anything. It takes a long time to post that way though.

You're right here. I was combining those two concepts. But by saying that something is wrong, like the papers on the website, I expected something more than "it was poorly written" or "the references weren't right" or whatever it was that you said.


I only did this because you always want some type of scientific evidence to prove/backup an argument. It was me being a smart ass.

I will not because I won't accept "it was poorly written" or whatever else as evidence (or back-up) that a conclusion was wrong.


Then why not say that instead of "it is wrong"?

In the 70's??!! Wow, if U of M was as hippieish then as it is today I'll bet that was a wild place! So we agree that not all scientific studies and the biologists who wrote them can be trusted.


Yes it is. Again I was being a smart ass. I was suggesting that the whole "predators kill weak or sick animals, leaving more fit animals to pass on their genes" theory isn't concrete. It makes sense, but it by no means convinces me that wolves won't pass on a healthy elk when there is a diseased one nearly dead nearby. The diseased, nearly dead elk most likely will be easier to catch, but maybe natural selection has made predators evolve to avoid unhealthy prey so that they themselves will benefit. I know me and you weren't having this conversation, but that is what I was getting at. Does that make sense?


No thanks. I already have access to plenty.


Where do I begin here?...I understood the article you provided, and I know he was suggesting the possibility is there. However I would expect a statement like the one I quoted to explain in more detail. It left me wondering "if little evidence supports the claim, then what evidence supports that it is not true? Your statement "Most pros don't even accept a size difference" is meaningless to me since people I have talked to that used to trap and poison the original wolves say that there is a big size difference.



By "professional wildlife org" do you mean like RMEF (or RMWF) or the Mule Deer Foundation or do you mean things like the U of M's professional wildlife society? I belong to the Montana Cattleman's Association. Does that count?


That is what I call "asskissing" and I refuse to suck up to people, especially professors. I am not trying to sound like a total jerk here, but joining one of those groups to look good to people isn't my style.



You're showing your arrogance here again. Just because you are older and more educated doesn't mean that you're right, and the wide-eyed, eager, full of iss and vinegar young guy stretching his legs is not.


I'm trying man...You're right though. The Masters degree is the ticket. I left the Bitterroot too long in the military. I am staying here for a while. If I don't get accepted then another BS it is! Maybe after that I will try to get into grad school somewhere with my new BS. Only time will tell.


Yes it would take a while. That is why I just like to argue common talk. If I was really interested in arguing science I would find a site that a bunch of bio geeks chat on. I look forward to more finger pointing and name calling, but right now I have work to do. Later.

I don't care what you expect. You don't even remember what I said and you're still harrassing me about it. Funny. If you don't see the problems with the paper, I'm not going to help you more.


I do not "insist on proof." I ask for references and other possibly relevent info. I might be interested in researching more, or I might be able to convince MYSELF with further info. Folks get all worked up about it because I just don't take their word. Screw 'em.


You don't even know what I "said."


Smart Ass..wasting my time. Real funny



I suddenly don't believe that you have the degree you mentioned.

You better not attempt grad school then.



Not me. I'm not interested in the game. I get jerked around by the lynch mob often, but I try to give the person the benefit of the doubt until its obvious they are simply screwing around. Bye.

How do you figure I don't see problems with the paper? I agreed it was bad, I was just wondering why you say that because it was poorly written that the conclusions were incorrect.



You have the typical professor attitude.


If I wanted to directly quote you I could have went back to your post in question. Your basic statements of the studies were that they were wrong.

I thought it was funny. If you are concerned about wasting your time than why are you on an internet forum full of people you know disagree with you?


This is funny too. Why do you feel this way? Can't a Bio student be part of the MCA? I'm not the only one...The only reason I would attend a RMEF banquit or even join their association would be to win a rifle to hunt wolves with this coming fall. I like pheasants forever and ducks unlimited. Maybe I will look into them.

Were all your grad students suckups? Are they the only ones you accepted?

Boo hoo. Did I touch a nerve? I appreciate your advice concerning schooling, but you have the same unprofessional attitude that I do. I didn't exactly get along with professors while I was an undergrad (I am sure you could have guessed) but I have managed to do pretty good in school so far and I don't plan to change that. You'll be back the next time wolf is mentioned. I'll chat at ya then. Take care.

We have a history that you may not remember, about the same time that the kid was having his fun the last go-round. But I don't have to look far: "If there is a trait shown here it's you butter cup. YOU have an attitude and that's why your not getting anywhere here with decent folks who know how and who to respect."[/quote]


Well buttercup, perhaps you should learn to be a decent person, leave the lynch mob of dirtbags that delight in attacking those who don't hate wolves, answer questions that are posed to you in good faith, and respect the message, not the messenger. Answer my question. It was also posed to you by another. It makes you look like you are lying if you won't clarify. I was trying to discuss it with you, but you being a badass that knows my "attitude", would rather avoid and attack, while cutely claiiming otherwise. My "attitude" toward radical anti-wolfers has been formed over the past several years because of forums like this. I have found the type to be conniving, insulting, nasty little dirtbags, and have chosen to stand my ground until their true type is obvious to others. Too many times, good folks have been driven off of forums because they like wolves. The dirtbags come out and harrass and lie until the "wolf-lover" simply leaves, usually because they just don't want to be involved in such vitriol. Go to the AR American hunting forum and search it for "wolves". You will find the Varmint and others who post trash and attack anyone and any group that dares to disagree, using the rottenest language and methods the moderators allow. Folks rarely even reply to thir posts about wolves there. So now those posts are just clusters of anti-wolfers revelling in poaching (SSS) and such. It has been bleeding into this forum lately too. I'm sure the anti-wolfers celebrate in that fact, for they figure they "win" when they chase their hated enemies away. The lynch mob delights in getting the "greens" to write long explanations in responce to questions and accusations. Look at Casey! He explains and explains and the mob screws with him constantly, not really caring about the subject or the answer. They're just having fun messin' with the "greens." It shows the low level of class they have, but the nice guys who are trying to provide info, answer questions, clear up errors, and discuss civily, generally lose such a game because they are not playing by the antis dirty "rules." You say that "I'm not getting anywhere with Decent folks who...." The "decent" folks you are describing are apparently the lynch mob type radical anti-wolfers who are low-class dirtbags. I get along fine with most everyone else. You made a poor choice of friends.

"I don't have "a hard time with that." I didn't question that you saw what you describe, I only question your conclusion. Untrained observation and anecdotal evidence are always suspect. If you want to seriously discuss the subject without insult, I'm all eyes.

What predators were choosing the healthy elk over the "sick" elk?" And what sickness did the elk have?"

Now, at this point, I don't really care if you answer the above question. The fact is: wolves are here to stay, the majority supports it, and their prey will continue to exist in high numbers for the enjoyment of all stakeholders. The three western states are now getting wolf management authority, we are looking forward to hunting seasons, and yes, the goals of wolf restoration are being acheived. It has been a great success, I wish the states well in management, and now the feds can hopefully stay out of it. The Bush admin has done a great job getting management back to the states. Its almost hard to believe that it seems to be grinding down to finality, considering the accomplishment. Of course, its my understanding the western delisting rule may not be finalized for 1 year. I wonder if Obama would reverse it. Could be trouble.

Wise, moderate conservationists have prevailed, despite the loud minority of radical anti-wolf non-sportsmen poachers. The radical anti-wolfers can go ahead and cry in their beers, boiling inside from their hate of wolves and anyone who might support them, and continue to try to "win" something; anything....even if it is just trashing wolf-supporting sportsmen on internet forums. Losers.

No. I noticed your weakness in knowledge of biology throughout your "fun" posts. I asked questions and posed possibilities to get further info and evidence that you really don't know what a BS in biology should know. I led you around by the nose-ring, using your own huffy self-attributed authoritative self-positioning on the high horse and vague suggestions, until you showed you didn't even remember what you were trying to trash me about, did not know the subject matter, admitted that you were just screwing with me, and are not really interested in solving or discussing anything. You are more interested in trashing someone you don't like. You don't know technical writing, or the scientific method. You didn't even know that I was investigating. Not that it matters, because I don't think a BS makes the biologist, but it is pretty evident you have no such degree, or at least slept through the classes, or went to a [bleep] school. What was the name of your degree? Where did you get it? What was your GPA and where did you place in your graduating class? "Pretty good" doesn't make it in the real world. There are thousands of folks fixing fences and working at Wallyworld that did "pretty good"; respectable jobs, but not what they went to school for.

After reading your posts, I can surmise that if you really did achieve the BS, you likely will never make grad school, and you will never last in the profession. Too much of an assclown. But by all means, continue to have fun.

I guess I've read it in enough places to be sure I believe its really true. Its even on the ESA page that all of them have been listed as recovered. Cool! My purpose for discussing the subject on hunting forums has been to try and add to the modest number of more centrist views posted. The radical pro-wolfers have used SSS posts by hunters as propaganda for their cause. Non-hunters need to understand that a good number of hunters actually support good predator management and respect the ESA. Forum members need to see both sides too. I figured it was important to do until the states were handed management, but it hasn't been easy!

Seems my work is done.

I'm with ya' all the way. The anti-wolf stuff hurts hunters and our hunting opportunity more than they seem to understand.

Don't worry, the hollering won't stop with delisting. If the reports of managing for 800-1200 wolves in the tri-state area are accurate, we're gonna hear more of it.......

Doghunter is going to have a tough time hooking up with a professor for admission into grad school--if he really does have a wildlife degree that will qualify

Casey

Casey,
All of the discussion on this forum has been very informative. There has been lots of data discussed. This wolf thing is a tough deal with both sides "digging in their heels". What is refreshing though is the way those of us that hunt and want them delisted and managed by the states they reside in have handled it. It has taken a long time and been a struggle for those of you out west and those of us that come to enjoy the beautiful areas you live, ranch, and hunt. Too bad the struggle is not over. Keeping the info flowing IMO goes a long way toward winning the struggle. FWI a friend of mine told me a couple of years ago that the Elk calf survival rate up Grey's River Road in Wyoming unit 144 steadily dropped from 1996 through 2006 (when I talked to and hunted with him last) to almost zero. Hopefully one day things will work out and they will be managed well. Keep up the fight.

Dave

You get the Red Wolf argument out there don't you? That's a real hot potato on all sides with the coyote population explosion. I guess they are having a hard time deciding if they have any pure "Red Wolf" left.

Blah, blah, blah.....

Steve,
I saw some of the posts regarding the Red Wolf but didn't pay a lot of attention. Bring me up to speed please.
I would really enjoy spending time working on the coyotes. We are having the same problem over here with the "yotes". Our natural resource agencies decided a few years back to introduce them into our woods to help to control the deer which IMO was just an easy way for them to manage the deer heard instead of doing it with different quotas and more liberal seasons.
It hasn't done a thing as far as I can tell to reduce the deer counts but there sure are a lot of coyotes. What all of this makes me fear now is what's next?? The WVDNR floated the possibility of introducing Wolves a couple of years ago (not officially). We haven't had a bad winter for years either. Who knows.

Dave

I'll post some information that I pulled together from about a year ago in a new thread. It's a really charged subject as you can imagine....starting with the breed itself. But, I am envious of the black coyotes back there. Also, compared to our little puppies out west, the coyotes back there look like they are on 'roids.

Steve,
All of us around here are about to get started on them. We'll get Turkey season behind us and get on them when it's a little warmer. I may get out and see if I can call one or two out here next week. A 75gr V Max out of my 6 AI will be the poison. If I get it done I'll post some pics.
It appears to me that dealing with this wolf thing is best done by maintaining as civil a dialogue as possible. I was in Jackson Hole in a photo shop talking to the owner and tried to enlighten him on the damage the wolves do and he really made me mad. I realized he didn't know what he was talking about and before I left showed him a video of a small Muley eaten partially and still alive. He didn't think that a wolf or a coyote killed for sport. Misinformation or no information are our enemies.

Dave