Washington we have a problem ( wolf attack )

this is the biggest crock of crap i have encountered in a long while.

a. wolves are not 50% bigger than they were, nor are their packs any larger
b. wolves do not kill for sport
c. if you've seen one internet photoshop hoax, you;ve seen them all
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
I8abug,

The article you linked appeared to be an opinion piece. I didn't see reference to any documentation about pack sizes greater than 20 and up to 40 or 50. That flies in the face of what has previously been common knowledge about the social hierarchy of wolves, so you need to post references that can be validated if you want that to be received as credible.

I was up close and possibly a bit too personal with a pack of 5 wolves in the YNP backcountry a few years ago. It seems we walked up not knowing they were there and kicked them out of their daybeds. They wandered off a little ways; we looked at them; and they looked at us for about an hour. Never felt threatened, but maybe they weren't hungry that afternoon.

Sg
 
this is the biggest crock of crap i have encountered in a long while.

a. wolves are not 50% bigger than they were, nor are their packs any larger
b. wolves do not kill for sport
c. if you've seen one internet photoshop hoax, you;ve seen them all
Misinformation, many examples have shown that wolves will kill for sport. Take for example the 120 sheep killed at one time outside of Dillon and not eaten. Wolves will do the same with elk in deep snow.

All the misinformation circulated on both sides of the debate is incredible.
 
I8abug,

The article you linked appeared to be an opinion piece. I didn't see reference to any documentation about pack sizes greater than 20 and up to 40 or 50. That flies in the face of what has previously been common knowledge about the social hierarchy of wolves, so you need to post references that can be validated if you want that to be received as credible.

I was up close and possibly a bit too personal with a pack of 5 wolves in the YNP backcountry a few years ago. It seems we walked up not knowing they were there and kicked them out of their daybeds. They wandered off a little ways; we looked at them; and they looked at us for about an hour. Never felt threatened, but maybe they weren't hungry that afternoon.

Sg
Sg, I don't know what you are getting at...? I don't think they are going to attack people or "surround our houses..". Never implied that at all. They are, as I stated before, a problem.

I never once implied they are going to start to attack people. You are not the only one to encounter these things up close and personal. I'm not afraid of them attacking me. Though I think I would be a bit startled. I'm way more leary of a grizzly bear or a moose than I am of a wolf. But grizzlies and moose aren't destroying herds of cattle either.

Don't assume something about me because I (like others) are being a voice about the problems they create. My stance is, and has been, they are starting to create problems. I said nothing more than that.

I am simply saying, that unless the states start issuing tags, they are going to continue to be a growing problem. If they issue tags, like for every other predator, I have no problem with them. I think hunters could keep the packs in check. Right now, they are having their way, and that they are bigger than the native type that was here,....2+2=4. Cattle and sheep herds are being depleted, along with the other wild animals. I'll bet you $100, that if this is not kept in check, our role as "God" will be looked back on and some serious thought will be put into, "Hmm, maybe this was a bad idea."

But the tree huggers get their way, and later they will have moved on to some fruit fly that's going extinct.

As far as articles go, everything has a slant either to one side or the other. One person could have written that same piece with the slant that, "Hey look! Mother Nature is making a comeback with huge strides!" <- In fact, that could have been the title...with pun inteneded. But, but...the problem would still be there. So opinionated or not, makes no difference.

I can't wrap my head around how people get all excited, respond to things, without checking or researching the facts. Slant it how you want. Wolves are here, they are creating problems, and we have to deal with it. How are you going to argue that?

What? They aren't climbing up the Space Needle...so they aren't a problem?
 
Typical response for someone who is Naieve in this situation. People who held the view you have are the main reaseon Idaho has called it an emergency situation. Tell you what, lets take 300 of these large wolves and put them in the olympic penninsula for 10 years, and let them destroy the roosevelt elk herds. NO wait, it will just be what nature is doing --- Balancing it all out... NOT. Come on get with the program and read up on this before you speak this nonsense.
Tallflyguy, are you aware that wolves existed with elk for 10s of thousands of years before western people came to these lands? Were the elk decimated for 10s of thousands of year yet somehow were able to survive? Right now there are a lot of fat, lazy, (basically domesticated) elk which have not faced significant predation except by humans with firearms, in whihc case fitness was not that great of a factor, (ie no elk is going to outrun a bullet). The elk population will surely decline, becasue now there is a predator base, when the elk herds decline than wolf production will be decreased and the peopulations will find a balance. Sure the balance will move form year to year, season-to-season but it will be a new baseline.
 
There is a well accepted, if not well understood, association between body size and latitude in mammals, called "Bergman's Rule." Simply stated, any species with a wide latitudinal distribution, or any group of related species with such a distribution, will tend to exhibit smaller body size towards the equator and larger towards the poles. A number of physiological explanations have been suggested to account for this. This is true for gray wolves, too, with the largest specimens in the far north Canada, Alaska, and Russia. However, the source for the Yellowstone and Idaho introductions were much farther south in Alberta and adjoining British Columbia than those arctic populations. In fact they were from only a couple hundred miles north of the regions where they were introduced. They were unlikely to be 50% larger than those that existed in the regions where they were introduced. That said, the abundant and naive resources available to the wolves during their first several years no doubt permitted them to reach their individual growth potential, which may well have been substantially larger than the last remaining wolves that were extirpated in those same regions after generations of hunting and poisoning.

The 2010 report from the USFWS, who are charged with tracking the introduced and native wolf populations reports a count of 1651 wolves in the northern Rockies (including all of the areas that have introduced wolves) comprising 244 packs for an average pack size of 6.7 animals. The packs are slightly larger in Idaho, where the census of 705 animals (not counting packs that are predominantly in adjoining states, but may have a portion of their range in Idaho) is apportioned among 87 packs for an average pack size of 8.1 animals. So, I'm not sure where the legends of huge wolf packs is coming from.

For those who are interested in learning more information about the wolves in the northern Rockies, it's not hard to go to the source and see what the US Fish and Wildlife Service has to say.

USFWS Wolf site: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

Here's the link to the 2010 report: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt10/index.html

Dick
 
this is the biggest crock of crap i have encountered in a long while.

a. wolves are not 50% bigger than they were, nor are their packs any larger
b. wolves do not kill for sport
c. if you've seen one internet photoshop hoax, you;ve seen them all
Ahhhh another Naive believer. Sorry wrong on all accounts. Wolves do kill for sport, this has been documented by Idaho Fish and Game, Multiple state biologists, and many citizens. Photos are not photoshopped.
 

Jergens

AKA Joe Willauer
Ahhhh another Naive believer. Sorry wrong on all accounts. Wolves do kill for sport, this has been documented by Idaho Fish and Game, Multiple state biologists, and many citizens. Photos are not photoshopped.
Do you have any links to articles or documents stating this?
 
http://www.defenders.org/programs_a...trust/wolf_predation_and_livestock_losses.php

Actual information stating numbers of livestock kills by wolves. VERY SMALL PERCENT
Well, like Sg has stated before, even these are slanted. Thus the title "Defenders of Wildlife". However, any percent Ryan, is more than what there was before. What ever it is...it's still a problem, no?

But those numbers are not entirely correct. There's no mention of those that are not even documented, losses that bigger ranchers call, well...losses. PBS ran an entire episode on the affect wolves have had. I thought is was a good balance myself.
 
Tallflyguy, are you aware that wolves existed with elk for 10s of thousands of years before western people came to these lands? Were the elk decimated for 10s of thousands of year yet somehow were able to survive? Right now there are a lot of fat, lazy, (basically domesticated) elk which have not faced significant predation except by humans with firearms, in whihc case fitness was not that great of a factor, (ie no elk is going to outrun a bullet). The elk population will surely decline, becasue now there is a predator base, when the elk herds decline than wolf production will be decreased and the peopulations will find a balance. Sure the balance will move form year to year, season-to-season but it will be a new baseline.
I am aware of this…. and sea lions also have lived for thousands of years among us. When there are hundreds of sea lions eating sturgeon and salmon and causing a huge dent in the population, action needs to take place. Just like the wolf problem. What’s worse is these wolves were artificially reintroduced. Believe what you want, but the fact is they are a problem and the state of Idaho tried to keep believing the crappy cool aid the wolf lovers fed them. Now they realize they were wrong on all accounts, just like you and many others who are "pro-wolf".
 
Do you have any links to articles or documents stating this?
This talks about the size of wolves and how the rocky mountain gray wolf was smaller than the canadian species of gray wolf.

http://rliv.com/wolf/DailyChronicalTruth.pdf


Another article. Scroll down and see the pics and info it talks about the wolves leaving the cow elk, or doe, and eating the unborn fetus.
http://rliv.com/pic/TheOutdoorsmanMay.pdf

A slide show showing documented wolf kills for sport and left behind by many different ppl.
http://www.saveelk.com/wolf_003.htm

A great article as well.
http://wolfcrossing.org/?p=197

Just look up "surplus killing wolves" on google. You will get all the documented info you need as well.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
I8abug,

I am in favor of accuracy and and oppose emotional grandstanding. I was in favor of the mid-90s wolf re-introduction as an ecosystem restoration measure. I'm not opposed to wolf management, including regulated hunting of them. I am opposed to hysteria.

TallFlyGuy posted some links above. From the first one I hope to obtain some credible information about historic wolf size and this first I've heard that the introduced wolves are half again larger than their historic counter-parts.

A quote from that link: "The wolves dropped into Yellowstone Park were not Rocky Mountain wolves, known in the scientific community as Canis Lupus Irremotus, a smaller animal that hunted in pairs and was the indigenous species in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Rather, they were the Canadian Grey Wolf, a super sized predator hunting in super sized packs that evolved to chase caribou herds for hundreds of miles."

This also was an opinion piece, and it lacks any credible reference supporting the allegation. The USFWS performed the re-introduction and has monitored it since. I haven't read anything by USFWS saying these are a different wolf species. My guess is that is because they aren't different, but alleging so is serving some anti-wolf argument. If people want to gain some support, they will serve their cause better by publishing facts rather than opinion IMO.

Last I heard USFWS approved the Idaho wolf management plan. Environmental groups may be preventing its implementation by legal challenges, but even in court the truth will prevail at some point, and then maybe the wolf haters and lovers can go have a beer together.

Sg
 
I8abug,

I am in favor of accuracy and and oppose emotional grandstanding. I was in favor of the mid-90s wolf re-introduction as an ecosystem restoration measure. I'm not opposed to wolf management, including regulated hunting of them. I am opposed to hysteria.

TallFlyGuy posted some links above. From the first one I hope to obtain some credible information about historic wolf size and this first I've heard that the introduced wolves are half again larger than their historic counter-parts.

A quote from that link: "The wolves dropped into Yellowstone Park were not Rocky Mountain wolves, known in the scientific community as Canis Lupus Irremotus, a smaller animal that hunted in pairs and was the indigenous species in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Rather, they were the Canadian Grey Wolf, a super sized predator hunting in super sized packs that evolved to chase caribou herds for hundreds of miles."

This also was an opinion piece, and it lacks any credible reference supporting the allegation. The USFWS performed the re-introduction and has monitored it since. I haven't read anything by USFWS saying these are a different wolf species. My guess is that is because they aren't different, but alleging so is serving some anti-wolf argument. If people want to gain some support, they will serve their cause better by publishing facts rather than opinion IMO.

Last I heard USFWS approved the Idaho wolf management plan. Environmental groups may be preventing its implementation by legal challenges, but even in court the truth will prevail at some point, and then maybe the wolf haters and lovers can go have a beer together.

Sg
Hey SG, The two species names are here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_irremotus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus

There is Canis Lupus, and then there is Canis lupus irremotus. Two different species.
http://www.mt-sfw.com/adminclient/WolfSpecies/go

There were not to many to be found for relocating, so they used the larger canadian gray wolf, but this is not what the pro wolf poeple want you to know. They want you to think they are the same, when in fact they are not. The sheer size of the wolves killed and found in the rockies should let people know they are not.