Wolves on the Westside?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by scottr, Aug 19, 2012.

  1. I think the point people are making is about sub species (Northern Canada vs Western Plains, etc). Similar to how a Skamania stock steelhead is not the same as a Sakgit run.
  2. Totally wrong. Now more and more biologists confirm the difference in species as well as dna samples confirm this fact. Its like saying bears are bears... black bear, grizzly, kodiak. All the same? Yeah right.
  3. When you can find a better source than the following named biologists, then you can come back and play in the sandbox. Until then, please be quiet.

    ....research biologists (Steven M. Chambers, Steven R. Fain, Bud Fazio, and Michael Amaral) with the US Fish and Wildlife Service completed an extensive review of wolves in North America.....A considerably larger northwestern wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) occupied northern Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, and the rest of Alaska. This wolf has always been common and its distribution has never been appreciably affected by human activity. The northwestern wolf evolved in northeast Asia and Beringia during the Wisconsin Glaciation, while smaller subspecies of wolves developed south of the ice sheets.
    ... The original wolf of the western states was 20-25% smaller, with large males seldom exceeding 110 pounds and the largest recorded being 125 pounds. The skull size of the northwestern wolf is also about 4-6% larger than that of the plains wolf. The evidence is pretty clear that the subspecies of wolf brought to the western states for reintroductionis not the same wolf that historically lived here."...
  4. so what's the correct taxonomy for each of the two wolves you've been referencing, if richard is wrong?
  5. i think you just confirmed what richard was saying.
  6. The wolves are a different subspecies yes. Just like native cutthroat trout and rainbows. subspecies, but different in many ways. Just like wolves. Simply put, they are non native.
  7. So now can Richard come back and play in the sandbox again?

  8. TFG,

    Canis = genus
    Canis lupus = species of Canis
    Canis lupus occidentalis = subspecies of Canis lupus

    I'm not saying there aren't differences among subspecies (I'm not a mammalogist), but professional mammalogists disagree about where to draw lines defining subspecies.

    DNA data can identify evolutionary lineages. These are extremely valuable in understanding the population history within a species as well as distinguishing among species. You don't seem to understand how these data are being used in the information you cite.

    ... and as far as I'm aware, no one has ever suggested that black bears and grizzly bears were the same species. Brown bear, grizzly bear, Kodiak, are all one species, Ursos arctos. Again, many subspecies have been described and, again, mammalogists disagree over where to assign boundaries for subspecies.

  9. You seem to be mixing up species and subspecies. A simplistic way to tell is that if it has two names, it is the species. If it has three names, it is a subspecies. So Canus lupus is the species but Canis lupus occidentalis is one of the many subspecies (and says so in the article you referenced). And no, it is not like saying that black and brown bears (grizzly and kodiak) are the same as they are different species, both of which have many subspecies. Using your example, it is like saying grizzly bears and kodiak bears are the same even though they are different SUBspecies.

    Ursus americanus, American black bear
  10. So we can agree that the canadian grey wolf, brought to Idaho, is a different subspecies, larger etc, non native to Idaho that was introduced? I am saying it was, and am showing you evidence that it was infact non native. IF you have anything that can refute that other than semantics, please share.

  11. oh, ok, now I see where you are are going with this. I forgot to add the "sub" part in the original post.....
  12. I'll reply in three points.

    1) As I've said above, professional mammalogists don't agree on how to circumscribe wolf subspecies. What difference does it make if a bunch of us yahoos on a fly-fishing board agree?

    2) Professional taxonomists (and I know a few...) would always caution not to make too much of the distinctions that are used to define subspecies (or varieties, or races, or any other infra-specific category). If there were strong, solid biological differences, they would be recognized as species. Infra-specific categories are used to distinguish somewhat finer variation among individuals in nature and are often little more than ecotypic variants.

    3) Some really good professional mammologists and wildlife biologists and population geneticists are involved with developing management plans for wolves in this country. I'd be very reluctant to second guess them on the science [the same argument can/should be used for accepting the science on which conclusions about global warming is based, but there are still global warming deniers out there]. If they accept that introducing wolves from Canada into ecosystems in the northern Rockies is an acceptable replacement for the extirpated genetic stock, then I'm not going to argue.


    PS, I'm going fishin' in a few minutes; y'all will have to carry on without me.
  13. I don't think anyone is disputing that Canis lupus occidentalis was the subspecies introduced to Yellowstone and Idaho as that has been well documented and was part of the plan (as this plan was pre-genetic testing). But, as salmo_g stated earlier, it helps to make one's point with the correct info.
  14. USFS and US BLM charged $1.35 per head/month grazing fees in 2011 2012 on public federal lands. Conversely, in Washington, grazing fees on private forest/open range averaged $12 per head/month and in Montana that jumps to $19.40 per head/month.

  15. You'd be wrong, Richard. You're confusing common sense for emotion. I also never claimed the ESA was unpopular. I said it was used in this case by a small group of people to further their desires for redressing a wrong they feel was done over a century ago. I oppose the introduction of any non-native species, especially by bureaucrats. It seems to me that your claim about "vituperative and lethal" comes not from people like me, but from those who support the introduction of wolves. As I said, all you have to do is take a look at the treatment they gave to the first guy to fill a wolf tag in Idaho; talk about emotional!

    All this aside, the bottom line is: wolves haven't existed within the Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana or Wyoming in any great numbers for a century. That's not "emotional", it's a fact. To massively increase their numbers from a few hundred into the thousands (you can google the Montana research project for the numbers there) by importing them from Canada, and expecting there not to be a great many problems is irrational. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if people think wolves fill an "unoccupied" niche, they'd be wrong, especially after a hundred years. I recognize there are many who'd really like to turn back time, but they fail to acknowledge that time as we understand it is linear.
    WonkyWapiti likes this.
  16. Another "aside" to throw onto this discussion; how many people are aware that the Russians have had an ongoing research project regarding domestication of both the Siberian wolf and the fox? It's been going on for over 30 years, and they've been able to domesticate the fox to the level of a house pet, but not the wolf. I find this really strange, since I've always assumed that our dogs were domesticated from wolves. Apparently not!
  17. The same "professional" taxonomists, biologists, mammolgists... etc etc, that cooked up the same science used to introduce the wolves in Idaho right? That was a great plan they all came up with. EPIC FAIL. Why introduce a non native, apex predator into an eco-system that is in check and doing fine?
  18. You can domesticate a wolf as you think of "domesticated". However, once domesticated, it no longer resembels a wolf. Closest are the Wolfdog. Wolf usually mixed with malamutes/husky/german shepherds. They look somewhat similar to wolves...well sorta. The wolfdog community referres to the % of wolf in a dog as "content %". Content % being the ammount of wolf in it. The closer they get to domestication as we think of it, the lower the content. ie in the teens %. You could take a few packs of wolves and have them looking like weiner dogs in about 10 - 15 years if you knew what you were doing. Their dna is hyper mutatable.

    These animals have no place on the ESA list. Well, no more of a place than the wild dogs that would result from the humaine society dumping all of their leftover pitbulls into the woods where I take my kids hiking.
  19. a guy up the road from our place has two dogs, he says one is 50% and the other is 100%. the 100% one looks like a wolf to me. the 50% one is white but looks pretty wolfy. they walk them both around our back fields all the time, and we walk past their place all the time on the way into town. they normally bark if we go by with a dog, otherwise they are quiet but curious. they seem fully domesticated to me, but maybe they aren't the real thing.

Share This Page