climbinmandan wrote:These studies, which are not published, give evidence to the fact that far fewer elk are reaching adulthood.
So as of now, no, populations are not entirely endangered, but the problem is that the statistics that tell you the current size do not tell you the ages of the herd.
Sorry, but I have a hard time believing this. The legislators in Idaho have a clear incentive to publish any and all information that would support their argument for delisting wolves or allowing more rigorous management of the wolf population. They would push for publication of studies that exist to this effect.
The Fish and Game folks have a similar incentive. Bureaucracies, in general, want more authority, and certainly the wildlife officials I've talked to at the state level want to manage wolves themselves--whatever their motives are, they want the responsibility.
Given those two facts, I find it implausible that they would sit on evidence of the damage that wolves are doing to elk herds.
climbinmandan wrote:Gray wolves were not IN the state of Idaho until they were introduced in 1995. Determining whether they were originally here many many years ago is just speculation.
I don't understand. Are you saying they weren't in Idaho in 1994? I don't know whether they were or were not--I'm not a wildlife manager. Your claim earlier was that wolves were not native to Idaho, which I dispute. Whether they were present in 1994 or not is irrelevant. Wolves, at one time, roamed Utah, but we know they were not present in Utah in 1998, because they were actively hunted and extirpated prior to that. That is not proof they were not native to the area.
Here is the Dept. of the Interior EIS for the Yellowstone reintroduction which discusses the nativity of wolves in Yellowstone.
[url]westerngraywolf.fws.gov/EIS_1994.pdf[/url]
They cite several studies, only one of which is available online through Google Scholar. The others are probably available through university libraries though. Here's the paragraph where they address this and the studies they cite:
"Impact of wolf recovery on wolves because wolves were not native to Yellowstone National Park. –
Wolves were native to the Yellowstone National park Area, although their historic numbers cannot be
determined. In recent times, wolves were the most widely distributed land mammal in the world next to
humans. Wolves occupied nearly all habitats in the northern hemisphere that contained large
ungulates. In the 1700s, wolves occupied most of North America north of what is now Mexico City.
Recent investigations indicated that wolves were part of the original fauna of the area now containing
Yellowstone National Park from historic times until they were extirpated by humans around 1926. For
references see Koth et al. 1990, Cannon 1992, Laundre’ 1992, Schullery and Whittlesey 1992, and
Kay 1993."
So, if your claim is that they were not present in 1994, then I won't argue. I don't know and I don't particularly care. But that doesn't strike me as particularly convincing evidence that they should not have been reintroduced. If your claim is that they were
never present prior to 1995 and are not native to Idaho, then that's a different story, but I don't think that's true. And the evidence linked to above suggests it is not true.