splattski wrote:Gray wolves were in Idaho when Lewis and Clark passed through. They just weren't from Canada, as far as we know.

You are correct. There were gray wolves. But there are over 20 different species of gray wolves. The breed that Lewis and Clark described was the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf, which is now extremely endangered and some believe that it is extinct. The difference is that the Canadian Gray Wolf is a very large and very aggressive breed, whereas the Rocky Mountain Gray was an average sized wolf.

builttospill wrote: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.

Well, I'm all for your argument in most cases, but it seems a little cynical for this specific instance. The men that I know who work for the Fish and Game are wildlife enthusiasts who are trying to preserve nature for future generations, not corrupt bureaucrats who seek authority and power wherever they can find it.

The reason that these studies are not published is that the Fish and Game never releases these type of stats immediately. It can take years for studies to be entirely conclusive, so they do not report on them until they are certain that they are not year to year fluctuation. The only thing that they consistently report are the numbers.

Either way, I knew I shouldn't comment on this. For some reason people will defend gray wolves to the death. Beats me. I just happen to have different opinions on our responsibilities as stewards of this earth.

climbinmandan wrote:Just like any other species, it must be controlled.

As Walter Hickel used to say, "You can't let nature run wild."

I wish I could find it. but a few years back there was an article on the changes that have taken place in the last ten years since reintroducing the grey wolf back into yellowstone talking about how nature was regressing back to what it was 100 years ago. The Grey wolf is the same thing that was introduced to Idaho from Canada and was also the same wolf that was around when Louis and Clrak visited the state for the first time. a grey wolf is a grey wolf is a grey wolf.......... in regards to a "more agressive wolf" Have you read any reports of people being attacked by wolves in the state of Idaho? what negitive encounters have you had with this "agresive species" in the state? I have encountered wolves in the state 5 different times and two of them have been with my dogs and in all situations the wolf fled with out conflict.

[/url]http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/intermed/inter_mgmt/ystone_wolves.asp[url]
This is not the link I was looking for but folows along the same lines. definatly a good read.

climbinmandan wrote:
The reason that these studies are not published is that the Fish and Game never releases these type of stats immediately. It can take years for studies to be entirely conclusive, so they do not report on them until they are certain that they are not year to year fluctuation. The only thing that they consistently report are the numbers.

Does anybody know what effect (if any) the looming government SHUTDOWN will have on these studies? And, where does the money originate to fund these
studies? Does it come from the Lobbyist Groups ???

There are 32 subspecies of gray wolves. Compare photos of Mexican gray wolves and Archipelago Grays. They are definitely NOT the same animal. Different scientific names and everything.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2011/01/21/native-rocky-mountain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/

This is a fantastic explanation of the differences between our native wolves and our new and improved wolves.

climbinmandan wrote:
Well, I'm all for your argument in most cases, but it seems a little cynical for this specific instance. The men that I know who work for the Fish and Game are wildlife enthusiasts who are trying to preserve nature for future generations, not corrupt bureaucrats who seek authority and power wherever they can find it.

The reason that these studies are not published is that the Fish and Game never releases these type of stats immediately. It can take years for studies to be entirely conclusive, so they do not report on them until they are certain that they are not year to year fluctuation. The only thing that they consistently report are the numbers.

Either way, I knew I shouldn't comment on this. For some reason people will defend gray wolves to the death. Beats me. I just happen to have different opinions on our responsibilities as stewards of this earth.

I should have been more clear I guess. I'm not saying that your friends, who participate in elk herd monitoring, are looking to gain more oversight or something. I suspect they're fine folks, doing what is probably a difficult job, and probably doing it quite well.

But if I'm the Idaho Fish and Game director (and even MORE if I'm in the Idaho state legislature), and I'm involved in a big political fight about wolf delisting, and I know that there are some preliminary numbers that suggest wolves are going to exterminate elk in my state within the next ten years, you can bet your ass I'm going to use those numbers to make my point to the news media, to my fellow legislators, to Congress, to the Dept. of the Interior, etc. I am shocked that there aren't quotes of Idaho state legislators saying "well, these numbers are preliminary, they haven't been officially vetted and released by our Fish and Game officials, but they seem to suggest that elk in this state will be extinct in ten years or that wolves are destroying an entire cohort of elk."

I mean this sincerely--I am shocked about that. If the EPA was conducting preliminary studies on the effect of greenhouse gases on temperatures in the U.S. and the raw numbers suggested that in the next 10 years absolute disaster would strike in terms of warming, you don't think we would hear EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson or some lefty politician saying "look, these are raw numbers, but look at them! If we don't do anything, we're all screwed, so we need to get off our asses and do something." You really don't think that would happen?

Not saying your friends are corrupt--I don't even think this fits a definition of corruption at all--I'm talk about the state legislators and the head of the agency, all of whom have a clear incentive to release information that is available to support their argument that wolves are hurting elk populations and need to be delisted.


Finally, I won't defend wolves to the death. I think they need to be managed differently, and ideally by state agencies. But if you can't see why your state officials make even people who are moderate on this issue nervous, then you're blinded by your proximity to the issue. I'm sympathetic to the anti-wolf crowd--I'm from Utah, both my parents are from rural Idaho, my entire extended family is still spread all over central and eastern Idaho, and a couple of them are even ranchers and hunters. But Otter and the rest still look like the wrong people to be managing wolves to me, and that's no one's fault but their own.

I suppose this debate, (or trying to understand WHY wolves are protected or not), could go on forever.

Something really bothers me here. I grew up in Utah, too, and I never really trusted numbers.

I always thought that was a wolf I saw in the Uintas, even though my brother swore it was a coyote. It was doing what
comes natural - just out there looking for food. And, it was probably looking for a way OUT of the spotlight.

I think we can ALL learn something from wolves. And, we don't have to dance with them to learn it.

Its with great hesitation that I enter this discussion. We have had the big wolf discussion every year or two since I joined SP seven years ago.

I live in north central Idaho and work with wildlife biologists in a number of capacities. I won't state an opinion about whether the RM wolf and the Canuck wolf are the same species or not. But selection has made them slightly different animals regardless. The Canada animals evolved to bring down the larger strains of moose and buffalo. Thus they are bigger animals and they operate in much larger packs. Insert this into Idaho where the elk and moose are smaller and have evolved with the smaller wolf and there is a concern.

Elk populations are down, but this may seem worse to me since I'm in the Clearwater/lolo part of the state where its well documented. I don't see more or less elk in the woods myself, but I see different behavior. Now they are in larger groups and hanging out in areas they traditonally didn't. For instance I saw a large herd in the bottom of a Salmon River tributary on a hot July day (typically ~100 degrees). Historically the elk would have never been there but they are doing different things in different places in response to the wolves presence. Its possible the change in behavior is resulting in people not seeing them where they used to and that is being interpreted as the elk are worse off than they area. I feel the largest impact is on moose. There are places where I would see moose almost every time I was there - for years. After the wolves came in, I have yet to see a moose in any of these places, but I have found four that had been killed by wolves.

Wolves definitely have some effect on the elk population, but its just one of many factors. In some places its probably neglible, but in others (such as the lolo), its very significant. Other factors such as hunting, habitat loss, fire suppression, decline of even-aged management (clearcuts) and long term population correction all affect elk numbers and play differently in different parts of the state.

I do grow weary of seeing statistics saying wolve have such a miniscule effect on livestock or there is such a low chance of a negative encounter. While these stats may be true overall, there is scale not considered. While its very unlikely your cow or sheep may be killed overall in most areas, if you live in a wolf area the odds go up dramatically. A few years ago a sheep farmer in central Idaho lost over 80 head in a weekend. And its true losses are compensated for, but the burden of proof is on the rancher. I would be certain some try to blame wolves for deaths caused by other things. But the burden of proof is very high and the percentage of actual wolf kills that are compensated for are very low. Something around 10-20%. I'm sorry, but I can't recall the source that showed that. You'll just have to belive me or not. And I believe Defenders is discontinuing their part in the program anyway.

Wolf encounters? Yes, they happen and much more than you read. One I'm aware of was widely publicized, another particularly bad one was publicized extensively locally, but three were not. I have had one myself and I would call it negative, but while it wasn't really dangerous, I would say it was unpleasant. Really I don't feel they are much of a danger unless you are very unlucky. Those encounters do happen despite the common cliches you always hear in the media. Besides my own contacts I have been told that by people who research wolves for a living. People have even been killed. We have talked about this extensively in the past and I'm not going to again. If you want to know about it, google it. Very rare, but if anyone says it never happens, they are just mindlessly repeating the PC line.

Wolves were definitly in Idaho before 1995. A few, but consistent reports occurred every year for decades before. Undoubtely some were really dogs or coyotes, but some were wolves. They should have never introduced the wolves because they were here and increasing. We were going to get there without all the cost and political fallout. A wolf was collared and tracked by biologists around Lolo Pass in the mid-late 90s. Another was collared and tracked in the mid 90s near Elk River, which is certainly not a remote area. An entire pack was known in the St. Joe basin in the mid-90s. All these wolves were probably spill overs from the Ninemile pack over the border in Montana. Those wolves dispersed from packs in the Glacier area, where the first pack in the lower 48 showed up in the early 80s. Ten years later there were more than ten packs in that area and they were spreading out. The wolves were well on their way naturally. I know the guy who first reported the St. Joe pack. He was told to "be quiet". Another pack is known to all the locals around Elk City, but despite continued pleas, the Fish and Wildlife Service wouldn't come investigate or even acknowledge the reports. Why? Because billions of dollars for years of program and tenuous agreements among the feds and enviros was in place for the reintroduction.

The current political mess around all this is the fault of the federal judge Malloy. The ESA is a law. When recovery goals are set by biologists in a recovery plan, they are law. The recovery goal for the wolves has been far exceeded. Official population numbers are 6x the recovery goal. But in reality the number is much higher, but can't be accurrately counted anymore. My source on that is direct communication with fed and tribe biologists in north central Idaho. Management was given to ID and MT when the FWS approved their management plans. Those plans established wolf hunts in areas where they were having largest impacts on elk. Harvest quotas were set, but none met for areas where impacts on elk were greatest. Still dozens of wolves were shot from overpopulated areas. WY basically had a "shoot on site" outside of Yellowstone plan so the FWS rejected control for that state. Then Malloy comes in and says recovery decisions for the species cannot be divided up by state boundaries and placed them back under FWS jurisdiction. This is done for other species though and there is plenty of precident.

So the states, who had plans worked out with the fed biologists are feeling ripped off because they played by the rules and followed proceedure. Recovery goals were met meaning the wolves legally should be delisted and this rogue judge says otherwise. He has a history of such decisions, but I won't get into that. So the ID legislature feels they need to do something out of desparation to combat what they see as a judicial injustice. Now, I'm not a fan of the ID legislature. Most of them are idiots, but I can see how they feel mistreated here. But its not just the hillbilly ID legislature. Congress right now is tossing around legislation to basically take wolves out of federal listing. Do we really want congress to be making species decisions with the ESA? Malloy should have just left it up to the State and Fed wildlife bios to work this out.

Now the FWS and some of the very enviro groups who originally brought the case to Malloy are proposing a compromise to the court to return management to ID and MT to avoid action by Congress. There is also a lawsuit to force the FWS to reconsider the WY plan. Back to the OP, I hate to see state legislatures doing these sort of things. Or Congress get involved. But this is getting so political that we are losing sight of the ground. These animals, like so many others need some form of management. The fed bios approved the state bios plan to do so. Keep an eye on it, monitor their efforts all you want, but their decisions and plans should have been given a chance. Malloy blew it and ultimately bears the blame for this in my book.

mrh wrote:Its with great hesitation that I enter this discussion. We have had the big wolf discussion every year or two since I joined SP seven years ago.

I hear ya, and feel the same way. In fact, I was hoping this thread would die a quick death but since it has not ...

I won't state an opinion about whether the RM wolf and the Canuck wolf are the same species or not. But selection has made them slightly different animals regardless. The Canada animals evolved to bring down the larger strains of moose and buffalo. Thus they are bigger animals and they operate in much larger packs.

Sort of makes sense, but "it makes sense to me, therefore is probably true" is a logical fallacy. Wolves do not acknowledge political boundaries. There is evidence that the wolves in Canda interbred with the wolves in the Rockies and that each migrated back forth across the border.

Wolves definitely have some effect on the elk population, but its just one of many factors. In some places its probably neglible, but in others (such as the lolo), its very significant. Other factors such as hunting, habitat loss, fire suppression, decline of even-aged management (clearcuts) and long term population correction all affect elk numbers and play differently in different parts of the state.

This is an excellent point. Wildlife numbers fluctuate naturally. In fact, one can point to our forced extinction of much of the predator population as a factor that has kept elk & deer populations artifically inflated, prior to wolf reintroduction.

Wolves were definitly in Idaho before 1995. A few, but consistent reports occurred every year for decades before. Undoubtely some were really dogs or coyotes, but some were wolves. They should have never introduced the wolves because they were here and increasing. We were going to get there without all the cost and political fallout. A wolf was collared and tracked by biologists around Lolo Pass in the mid-late 90s. Another was collared and tracked in the mid 90s near Elk River, which is certainly not a remote area. An entire pack was known in the St. Joe basin in the mid-90s ...

I'm not sure I understand all of this. If wolves were coming back, what was the harm in helping them along? The idea that there was some vast conspiracy among Fish & Wildlife, Feds and "enviros" (not a helpful term) seems a bit ridiculous.

These animals, like so many others need some form of management. The fed bios approved the state bios plan to do so. Keep an eye on it, monitor their efforts all you want, but their decisions and plans should have been given a chance. Malloy blew it and ultimately bears the blame for this in my book.

I cannot disagree that the situation has been mismanaged. Although I always cringe when I hear the term management applied to nature. If, for example, wolves are going to kill all prey unless humans step in to stop them why hadn't they done so in the millenia that they had before we got here? We always talk as if we know better. As if nature cannot handle herself. As if we ourselves are not a part of that same system. We don't know better. We are part of that same system.

Just in case someone has not linked this (I think someone may have) Some Effects of Wolf Reintroduction - Yellowstone

I've got to thank mrh, BeDrinkable, etc for their posts.

The broader point here (at least as I see it) is this: reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the value of wolves and wolf reintroduction. There are some facts that are established, some that are in dispute and will probably always be in dispute. Given what we know and don't know, there is room for a wide range of opinions.

The reason I even responded (since, like mrh, I have participated in wolf discussions in the past and I should probably not spend time doing this at the expense of other things I need to work on) is this: blanket statements about wolves "decimating" the elk population statewide are factually inaccurate. As mrh mentioned, their impact is very, very significant in the Lolo area. It is more marginal elsewhere.

Similarly, wolves undeniably have an impact on elk behavior. Some of those changes are negative (I don't know, maybe their presence near the Salmon River is bad--I'm not a biologist). The ecology research I've read suggests the effects are mixed--some are positive for the overall ecosystem and for elk themselves (i.e. packing behavior is returning) and some are negative. We don't really know for sure which effect is larger, so, again, reasonable people can and do disagree.

Anyway, that's all I've got to say on the subject. I think there is a reasonable middle ground between ranchers and hunters who have a legitimate financial stake in the discussion and other groups that have other stakes. Now it's back to relative SP retirement and studying for me....

Wolves do not acknowledge political boundaries. There is evidence that the wolves in Canda interbred with the wolves in the Rockies and that each migrated back forth across the border.

Yes, they always crossed the border and remember the wolves that moved into the Glacier in the 80s came from Canada. But the wolves used in the reintroduction where not from near the border. They were from far north BC. They were much larger animals and ran in packs of 15-20 animals where packs further south ran in groups of 6-8. North central Idaho and upper Canada are two different places and the animals likewise were different even if they taxonomically are the same species. Sure genes get spread around, but as distance increases, that mix decreases. It is likely that the very few local wolves we had (probably forever) were killed by the larger introduced wolves. They are very territorial and contact with others generally means death. But there may have been some mixing to.

I'm not sure I understand all of this. If wolves were coming back, what was the harm in helping them along? The idea that there was some vast conspiracy among Fish & Wildlife, Feds and "enviros" (not a helpful term) seems a bit ridiculous.

I guess that harm was the locally adapted strains have been replaced by an animal that is physically and behaviorally different. A big bull moose might have fought off a few smaller wolves, but make those wolves much larger and triple the numbers attacking and the prey has no chance. Also the cost of the program has been astronomical. There are so many other things the money could have been used for rather than get us wolves a few years faster when they were already getting a foothold. And there is the political fallout and ill will of the whole thing. Land/game management really does best when things are quiet, but get emotions and politics involved and that job really gets difficult.

I use the word "enviro" because I simply don't want to type out "environmentalist" every time I use the word. I realize that some would think a "conspiracy" is ridiculous and I was careful not to use that word. Conspiracy is not the proper word because I don't think anyone met to arrange how to pull the wool over the world's eyes to pull this program off. But getting everyone to sign off on how the reintroduction was to be done, the legalities and who would administer what part of it all was quite an undertaking. Wolves that were naturally here had full protection under the ESA. The wolves that they artificially brought in would be deemed "experimental" under the ESA. Experimental status animals still had some protections, but not full protections. The enviro community didn't like that at all. Eventually it was decided that I-90 would be the dividing point and everything north of that would be "natural" and wolves south of that would be "experimental". While many on both sides didn't like that and it created some management difficulties for agencies, it seemed an acceptable compromise because the natural wolves were thought limited to northwest MT and the introduced wolves would be 100s of miles to the south in central ID and the Yellowstone area. There were the suspected loners in between, but as soon as things got rolling all these other wolves, St. Joe pack, Elk City pack and lots of dispersing stragglers start coming out of the wood work. If the extent of the south of I-90 population was generally known it is likely that the enviros would have fought to ditch the whole introdution program because naturally occurring animals were flooding into the experimental area, thus there should be no experimental area and all wolves should have full status. The FWS is not a wealthy agency and they had geared up for this program that was going provide huge funding. Financially and politically it was in motion, thus it was going to happen. The local tribe, who has become quite a political and managerial force in recent years would be doing a lot of the work also figured into it. No one wanted to hear about the starting point being very different from what was originally believed and fragile agreements were based upon.

Although I always cringe when I hear the term management applied to nature. If, for example, wolves are going to kill all prey unless humans step in to stop them why hadn't they done so in the millenia that they had before we got here? We always talk as if we know better. As if nature cannot handle herself. As if we ourselves are not a part of that same system. We don't know better. We are part of that same system

I'm not sure I understand. Yes, we are part of the system. Yes predators killed prey before we were here and will always continue to. But because we are part of the mix, we need to manage the mix appropriately. In some situations that might mean hands off. In other situations where wolves come down onto the prairie and attack pastured horses or kill scores of family dogs or are observed repeatedly staking out kids at a school bus stop, humans might need to intervene to some degree. All of these things have happened within 30 miles of my house. Of course humans also meddle unnecessarily at times or for less noble reasons. An example might be managers making wildlife decisions based upon license/tag revenue needs rather than populations of game species. Humans are not perfect, but we are here and must be part of the picture. Hopefully we will act appropriately and strive to improve those situations where we do not.

Just in case someone has not linked this (I think someone may have) Some Effects of Wolf Reintroduction - Yellowstone

[/quote]

Thats an interesting artical and I read it when it came out. Pretty convincing and seems logical and I had accepted it as common sense and fact. Pretty much everyone did. My only concern was that one of the authors has made a career of inserting personal politics and bias into his science so I look at all his papers with a little suspicion. I'm not expecting anyone to buy that from me, but its what I know to be true from professional experience. However, as logical as the findings appear a very recent study of this situation has found there is no scientific basis for the conclusions reached. I'll try to find it, but I'm not making any promises.

climbinmandan wrote:http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2011/01/21/native-rocky-mountain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/

This is a fantastic explanation of the differences between our native wolves and our new and improved wolves.

IMO, this article (largely the reproduction of an email sent between private parties) seems fishy, if not completely false. I'll point out two quick observations:

1. The author claims that between 1984-1995, a lot of data were collected on the ecology of "resident wolves" in Idaho, almost exclusively from questionnaires sent to hunters and trappers in the early years and later on country residents. However, his first point of differentiation between the two subspecies is that the "resident wolves" were:
"- Highly secretive behavior. Very sensitive to roads and highways. Largely nocturnal." "Canadian wolves" were described as almost the opposite...
If this is at all true, then it is highly unlikely that a vast amounts of data were obtained from average folks out in the woods, who are
a) often very close to or exclusively on roads and
b) primarily out during daylight hours.

2. Later in the period of study, "county residents were asked to look for numbers of individuals: sex, age, size of territory, and behavioral qualities such as secretiveness and recruitment numbers of young etc." (emphasis mine) As helpful as citizen science can be, I would not trust data reported by the public to draw specific conclusions about the ecology of a species, especially a "highly secretive" one or a species that seems to be very similar in ecology and physiology to coyotes (and easily confused in many cases?). The long list of basic ecology and behavior that was claimed to have been known about these "resident wolves" from this simple and restricted effort is staggering. Litter sizes and other reproductive traits? Territory size? Prey preference and hunting techniques? If it were this easy, wildlife biologists and researchers would do nothing except survey the public from their desks. Who needs lab work to monitor disease, aerial surveys to track population trends, or radio collars to determine critical corridors or seasonal habitat?


The bottom line: Northern Rocky Mountain wolves are most likely the subspecies that was present prior to their reintroduction to Idaho and the GYE, and yes, they were here (plenty of museum collections to prove it, among other evidence). The existence of native, "resident wolves" with unique ecology is highly suspect in the Northern Rockies...

mfox79 wrote:I wish I could find it. but a few years back there was an article on the changes that have taken place in the last ten years since reintroducing the grey wolf back into yellowstone talking about how nature was regressing back to what it was 100 years ago. The Grey wolf is the same thing that was introduced to Idaho from Canada and was also the same wolf that was around when Louis and Clrak visited the state for the first time. a grey wolf is a grey wolf is a grey wolf.......... in regards to a "more agressive wolf" Have you read any reports of people being attacked by wolves in the state of Idaho? what negitive encounters have you had with this "agresive species" in the state? I have encountered wolves in the state 5 different times and two of them have been with my dogs and in all situations the wolf fled with out conflict.

I was a leader at a jr high camp 6 years ago just 20 miles north of sun valley and had an encounter with 2 wolves during a night game. I had six 7th graders with me when we stopped cuz one of the kids pointed out them out staring at us. We moved 300 yards downhill to the last staff member we had seen keeping the flashlights pointing uphill. One of the kids had spotted one of them again after we had moved down. They never attacked, but I would definitely list it as a negative encounter when there were 2 wolves comfortable to getting that close to humans at a jr high camp. Having been stalked by them with a bunch of kids with me wasn't comforting in the least.