Here's an interesting link for everyone that is well worth watching.....


www.saveourelk.com

Wow.....

A report on the IDFG webpage today says that the USFWS is going to announce the wolf delisting to be affective Feb 29. It also says that there will be court challenges to it. That's a given. This'll be tied up in the courts until we have 5 times as many wolves as we have now and the elk will be down to unhuntable levels. That's exactly what the huggers' plan is - eliminate the elk to end hunting.
IDFG delisting

Dick

Unbelievable! I'm hunting in the Selway this year for elk...

No way its just nature at work I am kidding but wow a taste of HUSA and Peta I hope they view it and all their members.

Cool. I like the synopsis of Idaho's plan.

Rockchuck,
The Defenders Of Wildlife will certainly ask the court for an order to immediately suspend delisting until a final decision by the court, but the hunting seasons won't start until next fall. The burden will be on Defenders to demonstrate why a suspension of delisting is necessary. It is unlikely they will make their case.

Either way, chances are good there will be a final decision before fall. At least that's the current thinking anyway.


Casey

On the surface, the huggers don't appear to have a case. The original reintro plan called for maybe 150 wolves and we now have 800 or more. However, they can go judge shopping to find a hugger in a black robe who can keep it tied up for a long time.

Dick

As mentioned before, delisting was proposed in 2005, Wyoming's lawsuit put it on hold, Montana, Idaho, and USFWS worked a deal to go ahead with delisting, Wyoming's lawsuits lost in court, Wyoming and USFWS worked a deal--which delayed listing by 2+ years.

When one files a lawsuit in Federal District Court, you walk in, slap the filing down on the clerk's desk, pay the fee, and the clerk throws it on the pile of other civil lawsuits--whatever judge ends up with it is a fairly random process.

The law is on the side of the USFWS--they've done their homework--legally and biologically. Although a little bit surprised how much PR legs the Defender's lawsuit is generating, it is the usual politics of fear--on both sides.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the Defender's lawsuit is going to amount to much.

The often quoted number of proposed wolves is the minimum number of wolves in the reintroduction plan to maintain viable populations--the actual number was always going to be more.

I just got a chance to skim through Montana's proposed wolf management plan and it's wolf harvest model yesterday.

All three states have the same minimum requirements--10 Breeding Pairs. They WILL NOT be managed at minimum levels--they will be managed to provide a cushion ABOVE the minimum.

In all three states, less than 10 Breeding Pairs triggers "automatic emergency relisting and management by the USFWS". All three states mangement plans call for immediate halt to sport hunting and depredation removal if the population drops to 15 Breeding Pairs for each state. It appears Montana will manage for 20+ Breeding Pairs--I suspect Idaho and Wyoming will be very similar.

Once the states management goals have been met, plan on a minimum population of approximately 500-800 individuals with roughly 60 Breeding Pairs in the tri-state area, excluding Yellowstone.

I also predict within 3-4 years, the wolf harvest will have been significant enough to reduce the wolf population in each state to it's management goals, and the quotas will be significantly reduced. The Idaho and Montana mangement plans both are proposing quotas on a unit by unit basis. After 3-4 years, the quota will be reduced (triggering more rhetoric), and the quotas in each unit will probably be filled in the first weekend of the wolf season.

Based on their harvest model, a wild guess is Montana will set the total statewide quota between 75-120 wolves the first season to see how things go. Wolves will be unwary, densities will be good in some areas of the units, and folks will have a field day. Each year the wolf hunting will become a little more difficult.

Casey

re[orts here are that they will be taken off the endandered list with 1500+ wolves in the area. Also , a hunting season will be established in response to the increasing numbers. In BC we are allowed wolf most of the year and there numbers are on the rise as well, same with cougars and bears.

I have serious doubts about that. If 1 million hunters in pa cant put a dent in the states coyote population, what makes you think the western hunters are going to have any more luck with wolves in such a vast inaccessable area.

I would like to have someone explain this point as well. Even IF wolves are hunted our affect will be minimal. There's just too much country for the wolves to live in and it's not country that's accessable year round.

Sure we humans are responsable for the way other animals dissapeared....look at the bison who numbered in the millions acording to Lewis and Clarks's journals. The wolf is not to be found easily enough and the short 'hunting season' and the number of hunters will, IMO, have no affect at all. Put a bounty on wolves and you may get some positive results as has been done in the past with other species. Learn from history and go from there. Just common sense.

I only wish the film that was made could get on TV.

Yeah, I think you've got yourself a pretty good point there, though there are very few dedicated coyote hunters here in PA. The PA Game Commission has something on their site I think that says to actually have an impact and make population decline, 70% of the coyotes would have to be killed off each year. You'd probably have to have a pretty liberal season on wolves, as I can see them being more like targets of opportunity for a lot of hunters. Another thing, nature tends to have its way of adapting and overcoming things like hunting in some instances.

Something from the PA Game Commission website, this is about coyotes but, I would think it would apply pretty similarly to wolves.

Bounties were placed on coyotes in western states for decades and they didn't lead to any significant population reduction. The main reason was that about 70 percent of a coyote population has to be removed annually in order to cause a population decline. Even then, coyotes - like many other species - have demonstrated an ability to offset population declines by increasing their litter size. It's spurred by a built-in biological mechanism that responds to population deficits.

Actually, private land is the most inaccessible part of hunting--there is a lot more accessability in the west where there is lots more public land. By fall and early winter, the wolves are where the elk are--in fairly accessible areas.


Wolves are not coyotes, different food requirements, lower densities, occur in packs that are easier to find, and much lower reproductive rates.



Casey

The three states will have quotas with long seasons--once the quota is filled, the season for that unit is closed. If you can find elk, you can find wolves........

Most sport harvest of wolves will be incidental to deer and elk hunting--watch.



Casey

Oh, I think there will be some folks that will start calling wolves, same as other predators. Some Alaska and Canada hunters are pretty successful with that method. There will be a learning curve, but it can be done. The problem is trying to do that during long elk seasons. Elk hunting really interferes with the success of calling predators.

Calling predators is a rush and is about as exciting as it gets in hunting.

One guide that uses predator calls

I dont know what part of the west you hunt, but in the selway where I hunt, is some of the most rugged inaccessable land there is, heck last time I camped back there, there wasent another camp set up within 6 miles and of all the miles Ive covered Ive seen a grand total of one hunter in the mountains. Once you start hunting these bad boys theyll get smart real quick and be darn tough to hunt. The way our ancesters did it was with poison, without scrytnine and 1080 there would have been no need to reintroduce them as theyd still be there. All of pa especially by western standards is super accessble, and like I said we dont even make a dent in the coyote population hunting or trapping them and we have an ARMY of hunters.

Yep but there sure do share alot of the same traits, super smart and cunning as all get out, from what Ive seen and read, the only differnce between a wolf and a coyote is about 100lbs.

Originally Posted by Rock Chuck

On the surface, the huggers don't appear to have a case. The original reintro plan called for maybe 150 wolves and we now have 800 or more. However, they can go judge shopping to find a hugger in a black robe who can keep it tied up for a long time.

Dick

Dick, you are 100% correct.

Everyone should remember that these left wing anti-hunting fascists -- just as with the anti-guns fascists -- never, ever, disengage. They have millions of $$$$ with which to fight, and they just keep coming at us from every direction.

L.W.

AND actually think they are accomplishing something in their pathetic lives.

You folks are invited to educate me concerning the use of predator calls. I have never tried one.

But I do know that electronic calls are not legal to use for any hunting purpose in Idaho. That pretty much rules out that fancy Foxpro that the boys from Alaska brag about.

While we are on the subject of the Foxpro and wolf hunting in general. It seems to me that Stick, and The Bros, and Steelhead, find wolves just a bit of a challenge. It seems they make a pretty big deal of it when they get one.

Color me a bit skeptical that hunters will have a real big or real fast impact on wolf populations. That is unless they are shooting from aircraft or snowmobiles. And remember that the Frank Church Wilderness is a huge area, by lower 48 standards anyway) and no mechanical means may be used to get you where the wolves are within that area.

I know enough about the history of predator control in the west to agree that no REintroduction would have been required (as was already stated) had pesticides not been available to eradicate those predators in earlier decades.

The Church is a good place for wolves. The problem is all the packs within 50 miles of Sun Valley and Boise.

Dick

Killed my second lion predator calling--with a TC Contender in 221 Fireball no less


Couple times, we would be done calling, get up check things out, and find cougar tracks nearby...........

Whe I was a kid, went predator calling for coyotes with an old timer who was a friend of my dad. A bear popped out of the willows at a dead run about 50 yds away--all he had was a 243 with hollowpoints The hollowpoints eventually did the job, but it was pretty darn exciting for an 11 year old.......


Casey

Thinking a fawn in distress might work pretty well for calling in some wolves, as well as other predators. Maybe seeing if you can get a good howl with a coyote howler could be another option, not sure if you could get a good wolf how or not.



Wow, that's pretty impressive! What's the story behind that?

Rock Chuck: You are ABSOLUTELY right on with your analysis (the greens objective is to end sport Hunting!)!
I have been saying this for more than 13 years now!
And I will state again what in the name of God was the rmef thinking when they gave money to aid and abet the Wolf transplantation???
Its simply beyond rationality!
Thanks for nothing rmWf!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

The greens themselves have said that this whole thing is intended to end hunting. I read it in one of their own publications at least 15 years ago. Their long range plan is to use large predators to reduce game levels to unhuntable levels. It took them a long time to get their own people in positions of power in the USFS and USFWS but they have them there now and they're getting the job done.

Dick

Most definetely...the fawn distress call will bring wolves in...taken from the horse's mouth. It's going to bring all kinds of critters to take a look at least. That's been my experience when coyote hunting. Deer bedded down in the sage will stand up and look. I never would have seen them had I not been calling.

BTW, I just wonder for example ... IF last years deer and elk hunting sports had been allowed to shoot a wolf on sight, how many wolves would have been taken??? Or put it another way, how many wolves were seen by sports during the hunting season?

Anyone have a clue? As I've said before, allowing wolves to be taken during the hunting season doesn't seem to be able to have that desired impact that's so direly needed.

I'm kind of surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the 'Save our Elk' web site and the pictures. I thought it was very well done.

I talked with a USFS district ranger in Elk City (ID) last June and he said that the wolves are really getting bold, He used to take his dog for walks at night, but now he carries a shotgun, just in case. He said that the wolves have been observed killing for sport and just leaving the dead elk without eating it.

I think those slides prove my/our points from some time back when we debated wolves.

Predators prefer to eat healthy animals over the sick and old. I first noticed this while working a 260 section ranch south of Datil NM.

Wolves sport kill for fun.

The commentator mentioned that there are no more Timber Wolves left. Why did he say this? Are these wolf transplants in Idaho not native and are killing the indigenous wolf?

I'm not a biologist, but to me that spits in the face of natural science. Those who purport these ideals, Sierra Club, ect, are hypocrites who use their general knowledge to bull shoot the clueless public.

Ive been wondering about this as well, in fact searched the internet over and over again, and cant seem to come up with an answer. Just what kind of wolf was indecudous to the western states back in the day? Have any DNA tests been done on old pelts/teeth from wolves killed back in the 1900s? My first impression is that they put an animal into an enviroment that it wasent native to in the first place, but then again I have no idea.

No, they do not. Predators will choose what is the most available and the easiest--the vast majority of the time it will NOT be the most healthy.

Wildlife don't "prefer" anything--they choose among a limited set of choices. Wolves may prefer a ham sandwich with mayonaise, but unless there is a delicatessen nearby.....

Meanwhile, they will choose the easiest prey that is the most effecient to catch.





Oh com'on--I know you are smarter and better than that.

Besides, "killing for sport" sounds like an anti-hunter advertisement..........I mean, if you think "killing for sport" is a bad thing, then you are playing right into the hands of the anti-hunters?






You are correct, and you will believe what you want to believe, just like the wolf-huggers will believe what they want. Luckily the two extremes are a tiny minority........

Meanwhile, the science has proven itself to be pretty solid on the whole wolf reintroduction thing, and it is biologically and legally defensible.

Wolves are here to stay, there will be more wolves than the wolf-haters can accept, and there will not be enough for the wolf-huggers.......and the two extremes will continue the war of words........and the science, wildlife management, sport hunters, hunter conservationists, and everybody else will continue to move forward.


Casey

No drama. My buddy and I had spent quite a bit of time on an 8 year cougar study (my buddy worked full-time for about three years on the study).

After treeing lions with dogs on the study, that method was getting a little ho-hum, so we decided to start predator calling. The unit had been closed to cougar hunting during the study, and we knew the good places, so it was a matter of going out and looking for fresh tracks and setting up in the area.

Predator calling for cougars is a fairly low success proposition in most cases, but at the time there were plenty of cougars in several units around this area. We saw cougars, or found tracks after calling where they came in (usually behind us ) about 1 out of 4 days we called.

I kept seeing females or small males, but finally had a 145# male stroll by at about 40 yds while it was zeroed in on my partner who had been calling a few moments before. Plugged him with a 60gr Partition out of the Fireball. He did a couple flips with a half twist and died.

My buddy killed a 165# lion, that was about 75 yds behind me. We would usually spread out about 40 yds where we could see more ground, and take turns calling.

We had the bright idea we could use Contenders and just throw them in our packs when we had to snowshoe into some places, making it easier than packing a rifle. For cougars--which are most likely to show up at pretty close range, a scoped Contender/XP-100 is fine. For coyotes or wolves a rifle is probably a better proposition. Besides, a scoped Contender is still a pretty heavy chunk of weight in a daypack, and carrying it with a sling or in a holster is a bigger pain than a lightweight rifle--at least it is for me.

Besides, I had two frames, two 221 barrels, plus a couple other barrels, and I never found the Contender to be particularly accurate.

I wasn't with him at the time, but my buddy also called in a lion and nailed it with his homemade flatbow. He has also killed two turkeys with his bow. I missed a gobbler with my recurve


Casey

? Casey...


If so, would make as much sense as transplanting mule deer to
Kodiak Island.



Well have to disagree with this. I know better from living everyday experience, not some text book indoctrinating me.

That's pretty cool. Very impressive you guys were able to call them in, I've heard/read lots on just how difficult it is, I guess mainly because the cats have a large home range. Is that correct? I thought it was pretty cool you used a 221 Fireball, not many shooting that round. Do you still have it? That's really cool your buddy whacked one with a flatbow, too. I feel your pain about missing the birds, I missed a grouse and nice pheasant this year with my recurve. Thinking about maybe trying it for spring gobbler at some point.

I keep reading on these forums that "they promised" 150, 300, 500, whatever wolves. Who "promised" that? Was it in writing? Are ya'll sure they didn't just say that recovery levels would be reached at XXX wolves/ breeding pairs? Its my understanding that the feds wanted a level of about 15 breeding pairs in each of three core areas in the three states. That translates to about 900 wolves (guesstimate). Since the pop is reportedly at about 1500 in the three states, and the states plans call for something around 1100-1500 wolves, that seems to be about the level they are at now, and will not be reduced under the states' plans.

Well, I am a biologist. Every point you made is errant. Please show me how you know that wolves "sport kill for fun", show me any research that backs up your claim that wolves "prefer to eat the healthiest....", and prove to me that "wolf transplants in Idaho" are "not native and are killing the indigenous wolf." Tell me how "natural science" has been spat in the face. And what makes Sierra Club members "hypocrites"

I know you are...

Okay, Wolves don't kill for sport. How about Wolves kill to kill and don't eat everything they kill.

The commentator mentioned that there are no more Timber Wolves left. Why did he say this? Are these wolf transplants in Idaho not native and are killing the indigenous wolf?

This is a question...can you answer it?

As long as the Sierra Club holds an anti-trapping position, I'll be at odds with them. Don't like them and never will. It's as simple as that. I also don't buy into the man caused global warming voodoo they support. They have a PC agenda, wolves included.

They also appear to be very democrat and I'm a republican.
http://www.sierraclub.org/endorsements/2008/


edited to add,

I've observed predators on occasions pass on sick easily caught animals to take down a healthy one. They just do, maybe not all
the time but they do enough for me to notice.

I've called in lots of wolves. Calls would depend on the area hunted. Fawn bleats, coyote calls, puppy calls, snowshoe hare calls, etc. all work.

Coyote have not been eradicated, despite being targeted for a long time. In that time, we almost eradicated elk, whitetail deer, bison, .....even Indians. We "had a reason" for killing all these critters; really horsecrap reasons. The wolf was exterpated from the lower 48, except for N Minnesota. The wolves were gotten rid of easily compared to the coyote, itself proving wolves are easier to exterpate than coyote.

The three western states' wolf management plans appear to manage at a pop level at about 1100-1500 wolves. Many will be unhuntable because they are in national parks and core areas like wilderness areas, etc.. But lets say that there may be 1200 wolves in the three states that are huntable. With a max sustainable harvest without lowering the pop below management levels being somewhere around twenty, maybe even 25%, the allowable harvest would be perhaps 20% 0f 1200, or 240 wolves. That's in the entire area.

Some management area goals might need more harvest to help increase elk and such to higher numbers. A tag for say the clearwater area could be given to every elk hunter. Minn used to have a bear tag on every deer licence. We had very few bear then, but since the bear harvest has been more regulated, we have had an explosion of the bear pop. That type of harvest works very good to reduce pops. But, I suspect the states will make wolves trophy animals with their attached nonresident fees so the state might make more money from sales. After all, they only need to kill 240 wolves (my guess) to keep the pop at current levels.

Genetics:
One can find many maps of genetically divergent distribution. One must remember that historically, the "splitters" dominated Taxonomy, as everyone wanted their name on a new species, subspecies, etc... Meristic characters were used, but even simple measurements of skull size, length, etc. were used to divide and subdivide animal nomenclature.

Take the coyote: I shoot coyote in MN that approach 55 pounds. How big is a Texas (example) coyote? Is it a different species than the MN coyote? Subspecies? NO, not just because of size.
Taxonomy has gotten a big reality check lately, with the advent of genetic testing. Lots of changes are being made every day. We are finding very interesting things. The Gray wolf is now considered (by most taxonomists) to all be the same subspecies. They are the same species as the domestic dog. The gray wolf went from some twenty subspecies in N America, to several species, to two, to one species in the last few years. It may very well change in the future. I'm positive that old fur, etc. has been tested genetically, but the fur must be positively correlated with an area, not just what someone says, but real proof; that is hard to come by. Teddy Roosevelt wrote that the smaller "buffalo wolves" occurred all the way to the upper Missouri River, but the mountains were populated by very large, ferocius wolves.

Whatever the case, the wolves had been exterpated from the west, were barely making a comeback in Northern areas through immigration (no know established and reproducing packs) from Canada, the same Canadian wolves that were captured and planted into Yellowstone, etc.

The current thinking is that Minnesota's wolves are more closely related to the buffalo wolves than any other populations. Do you Montana guys want some of our wolves for the eastern part of your state?

Wolves kill to eat. Surplus killing does occur. This is not news. Rag internet web sites use the pictures of dead and dying wolf kills as sensational propoganda to freak out folks that are clueless. And it works. But I see the bogusness and believe no more of what I read. Can't trust them to tell the truth. If they lie about some things, its probable that they are lying about much the rest.


No. You will have to ask the commentator why he said it. I did not look at the slide show on the rag site. It is the same site we have already crushed in previous posts as false advertizing with poor science and sensationalism. You might have missed that thread. When I visited the site, I didn't watch the slide show, although I saw the first picture that had previousluy been going around the internet, as well as the moose stuff, etc. I actually went right for the ""facts" (imagine that!) button on the site, where I found a really stupid paper that was supposed to prove that wolves are bad. I was also shown pictures of a "full-sized" grizzly that although the photographer did not film the "end", he stated that the grizzly was surely killed by three wolves in the most horrific way, right out of sight, where the photog would not dare venture. Look at the pictures of the bear. Is it a full-size grizzly? Not. The site is full of garbage, trying to prove its garbage claims. Walkingman wrote that the site may be bogus (not exact words?), but it "busts a myth", and so that's ok. Yup, its ok to lie, if it gets a point accross/busts a myth.



Yes, they have an agenda. Yes, I disagree with most everything they are for. But that does not make them Hypocrits. They believe in what they are doing.



Are you sure that the "healthy" one was not easily caught? And of course predators will take a "healthy" animal if they can catch it. The principal is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are more likely to escape, while the weak are more easily taken, so they will be taken more often. The healthy are more liable to escape, so they more often do. The result is culling off of the weak, more often leaving the fittest, who will more likely pass on their fitness. Kinda like poker... its all about the odds.

Sensational propaganda? Maybe, I don't think so, that's just your opinion.




Yeah, I'm sure, a couple of instances really come to mind.

The predators ran past a very obvious sick elk to to chase a
healthy animal. The sick elk could hardly walk.

I've seen this on occasions on a large 260 section ranch in
western NM that had an abundance of elk. It was notable enough
that it was brought up with others who live every day with elk on other ranches. They saw and noted the same thing I observed.
Our simpleton minds came to the conclusion that predators like to eat healthy just like we do.

Why do you have such a hard time with that?

Do tell us about the wolves in New Mexico and how their killing healthy elk. How many wolves do you think live there?

Did I say wolves?

...or predators.

Hello DPole. I have been reading these wolf posts with great interest. I just read that you are a biologist, and maybe you can help me sort thru all of the opinions that these (heated)topics usually bring out. If you have the patience, (can keep it simple for me) I would like to learn more about the re-introduction situation. I would like to start from the beginning of the re-intro process and follow it thru from there (it often gets difficult to follow thru all of the back-and-forth posts on the threads).
What is the agreed-upon number of breeding pairs, packs, and total wolves when the original introduction was begun? What were the numbers in the original agreement that would trigger the de-listing and turn over control to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming? What entities would be financially responsible to defend any future lawsuits, studies, and management requirements under the ESA? I've got a ton of questions, but this should get me started for now, thanks for your patience, and I look forward to hearing the facts from someone in the know. Tim

You didn't crush anything. You can't back up anything you say. You always write that the extreme anti-wolf people are full of lies and their claims have no merit, but you can't back up anything you say either.



I don't believe half of what biologists/ecologists say. They may be able to crunch numbers with the best of them, but that doesn't mean that they obtain accurate data. All some of them know is what they learned at college. There was a couple of colts killed near Florence MT a year or so back and the Montana FWP couldn't determine if it was a lion or wolves/coyotes that had made the kills. They were apparently fresh kills. I do not know if there was a new snow or any other environmental factors, but a "biologist" should be able to reach a decision on a fresh kill, even if magpies and such have scavanged the carcass. If they can't than they shouldn't be the investigator on suspected livestock predation cases. It does nothing but give locals even more reason to distrust predator "experts".

As little as I like wolves, I must admit the website was terrible. Lots of misspelled words and the narrator sounded like a third grader with down syndrome. I am sure they made some false claims just like wolf huggers do. The local "timber wolf" may be the same taxonomic species as the "grey wolf" from Canada, but as far as I am concerned it is a different animal. There are some old timers here in MT that have told me that the animals they would trap/poison for the bounty were not a whole lot bigger than coyotes. 70-90 pounds was a good adult. Most were much smaller. These newer animals top out at (a guess) 150 pounds. I have seen them (less than 30 yards) in elk camp and they are bigger than rottweilers. That, to me, is a "different" animal.

I suspect after hunting season starts and the wolves get shot at a few times and experience the loss of their buddies they will not be seen very often during daylight.

Wolves were being discussed, I doubt that coyotes are taking down healthy elk.

Looks like you two better get your stories straight.

You just said so. Surplus killing is sport killing. Just because they don't hang trophies on the wall or go to the bar and tell stories does not mean it is not substantially the same behavior. Anyone who owns a well fed cat will see an example of "sport" killing by a predator.

Funny description of fittest. You a biologist? Fittest is properly described as the ability to pass on genetics. The terms "healthy" and "weak" are meaningless in that context, because both predator and prey evolve adaptive advantage irregardless of "health". Hint: A species prior to developing an adaptive advantage is just as healthy as after except in the case of the specific predator/prey relationship.
Your confusion about what fitness is is very common.

Healthy and weak are a component of fitness.

Predators don't kill for sport--your anthropomorphism is quite common for those with an agenda--both extremes engage in that rhetoric.

Casey

Classic example of monkeywrenching.


Casey

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? I can certainly understand what you describe happening, but I suspect the predator did not choose the prey based on how you feel. I can see any number of scenario that could fit such an instance. Perhaps the predator in question was already keyed on the healthy elk. I don't know. But hey, you already know the answer and that's it. No question. Don't need no help.

Tim,
Please do not make any decisions or base your opinions from anything you read on internet forums. There is so much hatred and vile behavior involved that anything could be said. Instead, please read info from the pros. Even it is sometimes difficult to sort through. I think its mostly because of all the court cases and such making it difficult to get some information, like genetic analyses. I will PM you a list of web links if you like. I've got a ton of them on one of my older computers, which has recently crashed. I hope I can get the links off it because its the only place I have them recorded. I'll get them to you if I can. Let me know if you want them.
In general, the radical pro-wolf or radical anti-wolf sites are better left to those already well versed on the subject, as garbage can be sifted out with a basic knowledge of wolves. They often have a lot of good references (especially the pro-wolf sites- they seem more professional) that one can look up. Most of the links I have have been googled or are already well known to me. The federal government's endangered species page, as well as the various states' agencies have good info, although sometimes politically softened. The international wolf center is really good, but tilted toward pro-wolf. There are many, but my favorites are probably the Canadian wildlife management web sites and the Yellowstone Park pages. Try Googling "Yellowstone wolves."

As far as specifics, I'm somewhat confused about the exact numbers too. I think it started with the feds saying they wanted to get at least 30 "breeding pairs" which transfers to 300-900 wolves, depending on who is estimating. I've read that the three states have about 100 breeding pairs and 1500 wolves, which would translate to 15 wolves for each breeding pair. I guess that might be evidence that the 30 pairs should translate to about 450 wolves? I've read that the feds accepted the three western states management plans, but insisted on 15 breeding pairs in each state to by sure the wolves would not reach levels considered too low for good genetic flow between the populations. So, even though I have not thoroughly read the three western states' management plans, they seem to be using the 15 breeding pairs as a minimum and are going to manage at some higher number. I seem to remember Montana's numbers being 300 something as minimum and 600 something as a maximum. Wyoming is going more with the minimum, 15 breeding pairs; 8 of which will be in the park, and 7 outside. That would be about 100 wolves outside of the park? The management plans are on the states' web sites. I have the documents copied, but again, on the crashed computer. I think these are some of the numbers we are writing about, and as Casey has said over and over, Wyoming stood their ground for a long time, delaying the delisting for years after the goals (30 pairs, 300? wolves) were reached. Some claim that "they" promised the states would have only XXX (150, 300, ?) wolves, but I suspect the number was simply given as a recovery goal, not a promise of future standing pop numbers. I've asked the question several times on hunting forums, but no one seems to want to tell me who "promised" the low number......

I don't know who exactly is responsible for costs, but I suspect the states will be, as soon as they get management control. Hopefully, there will be groups like Defenders of Wildlife that will continue to help ranchers with depredation costs, etc., as they currently do. In Minnesota, where we now have management authority, the feds are still helping us with some management problems and depredation complaints, trapping problem wolves, etc. until we get better at it. The state has created new positions (wolf biologists, etc.) and is doing a new population estimate this winter (the last one was in 2004). The folks here are getting more tolerant of wolves as they learn more about wolves, lessening their fear and loathing. Things are looking up.
Thanks for the question and the opportunity to reasonably discuss this subject without all the crud that usually goes with it. I wish we could always do it this way.

How about you back that statement up, by making it specific instead of a wild-assed claim of unanswerable drivel. Pick out something I said and I'll back it up. Anything. I'll leave it up to you to select so thay you can make it really hard. K?



I know you don't believe biologists, unless they agree with you. Its a trait of the uneducated. Your statement showed that you know nothing about the education and careers of biologists. What makes you think that biologists start and stop learning when they enter and leave higher education? We have the same friggin life experiences that you all do.



Nice story. It doesn't matter what you think biologists should be able to do. You have already proven you know nothing about biologists. But I'm sure that all the non-biologists would be able to sort out exactly what supposedly happened with the horseys

There ya go....CRUSHED!



Well then you should draw a map of your percieved "different animal" groups. Maybe you could sell it. The question about "no more timber wolves" was so silly, I didn't bother with any answer. I don't feel the importance some of you have given it. If you want to know why the guy said it, ask him. Get off your fat ass and write the guy. Then you can settle back down.
I had no idea that the immigrant wolves from Canada that wandered into Idaho and Montana were locally called "timber wolves." It can certainly be said that there are no more timber wolves, for various reasons. One would be that they are no longer considered a distinct subspecies. The Eastern Timber wolf was the name given to the "subspecies" of gray wolf that occupied the eastern US and Canada. The Algonquin was considered a seperate subspecies... etc.... We've discussed this. The populations are now considered the same subspecies, thus they do not carry separate names like eastern timber wolves, buffalo wolves, etc. They are called gray wolves; all of them. Thus-no more timber wolves. As far as the claims of the rag web site guy, I suspect he was using the claim, which can be truthed like I did it, to "prove" a different point. It may be that stupid claim the radical antis have that they thought might really turn the tables and prevent wolf intro; displacing a distinct population with an exotic, the "evil giant Canadian wolf." Being smarter than the stock owners association, the radical pro-wolf groups joined the suit (with the stock growers) against the feds. It backfired for the antis and went for the pro-wolfers because a judge (Downes) agreed the possibility existed, so he separated the northern Montana and northern Idaho wolves as a population distinct from the introduced, experimental pops. It didn't work the way the antis wanted. Instead, the Northern pops are protected even more, with more restrictive rules and less ability for folks to deal with problem wolves. Be careful what you ask for.

And what do you do for a living? Why are you better than a biologist, who you heard through the local grapevine, didn't know what killed the horsey? Did you go out there and ID the killer? Or do you just claim it was a wolf, like a good little wolf-hater, so the owner could get some of that Defenders of Wildlife money?

Don't forget to find something specific that I cannot "back up."

Its not a "description" of a puppy either, probably because I attempted to describe neither. But I insist that an elk that is alive is more likely to pass on its genes than one that been et, thus the live one be mo fit. You need way more larnin'.

Only one of my friends had a wolf within rifle range last season. He was fairly confident he could have closed the deal. Neither I nor anyone I was hunting with saw a wolf last season.

The Idaho wolves in the area I hunt are relatively tame, when compared to coyotes. It will take a couple of days of hunting before the wolves learn they are now the prey but I'm certain they will learn quickly. I plan to be there, rifle in hand, come opening morning and I will be in area already known to hold wolves. With a little luck I should be posting a photo.

Thanks DPole, if you can PM me with those links, that would be great. Tim

Prove it. How do you know it is not a full size bear. I am not trying to defend the site...It looks smallish to me too...but prove that it is not a full size bear.


Prove it.


Prove it...especially the bold part.


Prove it. I have a BS in Wildlife Biology and have applied for graduate school. Ironic isn't it? Hopefully I can make some changes some day.


This was a poorly worded statement on my part. I believe that some biologists/wildlife professors learned to collect data only through books, and only the way the book says to do it. I believe that a lot of data is skewed because the researcher misidentified a snow dusted lion track for a wolf track and vice versa. Things of that nature. Sure, mistakes happen, but I do believe that experienced hunters/ranchers can better identify animal sign than a lot of biologists who spent little time in the woods before becoming a biologist.


Not a chance. But a predation investigator should, especially on fresh kills.



That's an idea, especially if I get into grad school.

I don't want to know why the guy said it. I never claimed to.

Now that's not nice...You're one of the posters who says you wish this topic was not so full of hate or something like that. I have a single tear running down my eye.


First, you make it sound like all wolves in ID and MT between the 1920's and 1995 were immigrates from Canada. I don't know if this is what you meant or not, but there have always been isolated pops of wolves in the extremely remote portions of ID. They were never fully extirpated, at least that's what the IDFG claims. Maybe you in all your infinite wisdom can shed some more light on this. I can't imagine that the original wolves have not bred with the introduced ones, so this one may get really complicated.
Second, the native wolves were called "timber wolves" like a mountain lion is a cougar and a puma (I am not talking about the Florida Panther). Their size may differ regionally (Bergmann's rule maybe? I don't know), but they are the same thing, just as you claim taxonomists classify "timber wolves" with gray wolves. Locals call them different things. I still believe that the introduced ones were physically bigger than the native wolves and are therefore "different" animals. I'll take the word of the locals who were involved with the bounties back in the day.


This is confusing. Remember I am just a dumb Montana redneck. By using present tense, you make it sound like some packs in ID/MT are more protected than others, and that there are 2 seperate subspecies involved. I don't doubt your story about antis/feds/pro-wolfers happened, but am a little confused with the second to last sentence. Should this all be in past tense, since the newest findings found that there is only 1 species?


I used to ranch/guide, and was discharged from military service last month. Now hopefully I will go to grad school at U of M (AKA hippie university). If I don't get accepted I am going for another BS, maybe in Botany or Zoology. Either way, I am not looking forward to being in Missoula every week.


I will bet both my nads I have seen more predation kills than a lot of predator biologists. I have never seen a fresh kill that didn't have obvious clues as to the culprit. I did not go out and ID the killer in my example, I was on the other side of the world. I heard this second hand from somebody I 100% trust. I didn't claim it was a wolf kill, as the area has a lot houses, lots of coyotes and people (including who I heard this from) have ran lions in there. In fact I doubt it was a wolf simply because of where it was located. I was simply saying that the investigator couldn't determine a conclusion on a fresh kill. This has not been an isolated incident...several have been undetermined.

I have wasted an hour of my life. I'm going to go feed the horses then kick back with a cold one.

Oh, but you see, it IS a full-size bear. That's the point. Its a full-sized cub bear. See the squiggly wording? And I drew attention to the photos and paper so you could look at them and make your own decision. It looks to me that the facts were twisted to try and convince folks that don't know what an adult grizzly might look like next to wolves, that wolves are so vicious that only three of them can kill a full-size bear. And they did it, even though they really didn't. You agree it is smallish. Anyone should. perhaps not proof, but almost overwhelming evidence. If you are getting ready for grad school, you should already know about controls, good statistics, good experimental design, proper use of references, etc. Look at the study in the site. See if it would meet your technical writing instrutors expectations.



Don't need to. Its already well accepted science.



Yup, you are right. I somehow thought I was replying to SU35. I know more about him. Sorry.


A BS ain't crap. You have not even started. Your statement: "I don't believe half of what biologists/ecologists say. They may be able to crunch numbers with the best of them, but that doesn't mean that they obtain accurate data. All some of them know is what they learned at college." does show that you know nothing about the education or carreers of biologists. It is a stupid statement. Biologists don't just crunch numbers., etc........ Its the statement I had to work with and it showed lack of knowledge.


Yeah, ok.?.? Yup, and some biologist grew up on ranches, and some ranchers couldn't find their !@#$%^*



SU 35 again.



You need far more evidence to make that claim.




They already got those maps. Ahh, Grad school. The 70s were fun. I've been in the business since then. Good luck to ya.


sorry, SU35 again



Prove it. I said nothing about the 1920s



Prove it. See how silly this can get?



prove it


Or perhaps this guy could share his "infinite wisdom", if you don't believe me. "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."
http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/idaho-eleven-years-with-wolves.htm




Some of the guys on here insist that the introduced wolves would kill all the resident wolves, because they are bigger



But you can't "prove it."
Every animal is "different." Its just a matter of how much. You are different and perhaps bigger or smaller than your cousin Joe, or whatever. Not a different species, or subspecies, etc.



Too bad you could not follow. I'll try a different tact. Remember, some think the wolves existing before the intro in N Montana-Idaho were a different species, subspecies, etc.... Judge Downs actually agreed that they could be different enough to have the introduced wolves (in N Montana...) removed. It was impossible to do and the feds got the case moved to a different district to get away from Downes (I guess). Judges met several times to decide if and when the appeal would be accepted, but they kept delaying the decision and I eventually lost track of the case. There are two "distinct populations" in the area, not different species, etc. The feds have the Northern population listed as "Endangered" and the southern pop listed as "experimental/ non-essential" (the ones in Jellystone, etc.) I'm not sure what is happening during the upcoming delisting of western wolves in the three states, as what I've read so far is that only the southern, experimental pop will be delisted, but some seem to think both pops are being delisted. If I cared, I would google the info or just look at the federal weg page to follow the news. You can too.



You implied that even though you did not know the circumstances, you know that the scene was solvable. You don't know that. A good biologist would know not to come to that conclusion so fast.

In fact, as long as we are proving our statements, I challenge you to prove that the investigator should have been able to .......



Prove it



Sorry I confused you with SU 35, as I assigned some of his traits to you and answered accordingly where noted.

But, if you need proof of natural selection, you wasted way more than an hour, you wasted the cost of a degree. Stop laying around, sucking down the suds and prepare for grad school. Hopefully, if you get into grad school, and even maybe maybe make your doctorate, and get a job like I just retired from, and put in about 30 years, retire, and then get jumped on the internet by some kid that don't know crap, you'll think of me and get a good laugh out of it.

So where did I exactly insult you?



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.

Perhaps you need to do some editing starting with your own personal traits and not attributing me to someone else's quotes.

Every genotype has healthy and weak periods in their life. Even the genotype that is successful against a predator has weak periods. For example the healthiest bull was a calf and at some time may succumb to winter stress.


On the contrary, I'm the one drawing no distinction between "sport" and surplus killing. The behavior that triggers surplus killing is a form of "sport" in the sense the animal is following a behavior pattern for the sake of the behavior itself. You don't understand what "play" behavior is do you?

Let me guess ... the public sector.

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

Thanks Dave. And sorry about all the fussing and fueding in-between......

The states aren't going to let wolves put a hurtin' on elk populations--there'll be plenty of elk to hunt. And some wolves to hunt too!


Casey

The last thing I heard from a Prof that had some knowledge of the issue, they didn't have any pure Red Wolves left, but DPole pointed out the Red Wolf program was still going.......so heck if I know what going on...........



Casey

Oh yeah...it's still going.

Dpole!!! I knew you wouldn't stay gone for long!

My grades weren't the best, but I did good in the wildlife classes. I was a B student. It was non-wildlife classes that brought my GPA down to about 2.8 or 2.85. Classes like Sociology and Physics. My definition of "pretty good" seems to be different from yours. I did really good on the GREs though and the Prof I talked to at U of M said that should help the grad committee overlook my low GPA. I don't have great school references though (imagine that). That will also make it tough. If I don't make it, fine. I'll get a second BS. I also have a LOR from a Marine Colonel, 2 leadership diplomas, a host of certificates (including 1 for training Iraqi soldiers) and awards/medals as well as a guiding license (standard red cross/CPR certificates included). If I don't get a job in your field there are federal agencies hiring people with only 1 BS, let alone 2 and veterans preference. So don't worry about me sunshine, I'll be fine in the civilian world.

I respect that you have been in your field so long, but you must admit that your conduct on this forum is no better than those that you have complained about.
Gotta leave for a funeral tomorrow, so I won't be able to chat with ya for a few days. Have a good one.

Who said I was going anywhere?

I just no longer have a good reason to argue about wof biology, etc. on an internet hunting forum.

Ah yes; a vet. You may very well be able to do it, with probation. Maybe you could apply for that job of investigating predator kills.

Well sushine, my "conduct" has varied in response to the poster I'm addressing, based on how they have treated me. Its the only way to survive. I probably mistakenly trampled on some who didn't deserve it. At least I have not started to harrass posters for "fun." But hey, I think you might be in SU35's group of trusted and respected guys on the forum. Rejoice!



Beware the barbarians at the gate, with their stone axes and odd cries.

I hope to go elk hunting in Idaho some day. If I do, any wolf I come across will get the same thing coyotes do around here only I'll feel better about it!!!!!