Don’t kill wolves – just keep them away

[fowladdict]

Thank you for the info. I suspected older members were vaguely referring to an earlier debate on this subject.

If you have time, dig back to 2006-2008ish and you may find some pretty good discussions here. I recall some posting old-time photos of wolves killed in the west that looked like they were the same size-wise as they are today. It was kind of a comical time. Some folks (probably not HT members) were hell bent on believing the wolves were close to #200. Once we were able to hunt/trap them, no one killed anything close to that. But those folks still argued todays wolves were much bigger, they just dropped the #200 label.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Unsure of accuracy but this website ranks wolves by size, saying some category of "Northern Rockies" wolf is smaller than a "Northwestern wolf", which is the largest. I'm not saying these are different species, rather I'm piggybacking onto another poster's point about different regions. https://a-z-animals.com/blog/the-10-largest-wolves-in-the-world/

Northern rockies wolf (irremotus) is currently considered the same subspecies as occidentalis.

Nowak, R. M. (1995). "Another look at wolf taxonomy" (PDF). In Carbyn, L. N.; Fritts, S. H.; D. R. Seip (eds.). Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world: proceedings of the second North American symposium on wolves. Edmonton, Canada: Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta. pp. 375–397.

Amaral, Michael; Fazio, Bud; Fain, Steven R.; Chambers, Steven M. (23 August 2012). "An Account of the Taxonomy of North American Wolves From Morphological and Genetic Analyses". North American Fauna. Department of Environment and Conservation, Newfoundland and Labrador. 77: 1–67.

 

[westbranch]

Misjudging the size of wolves reminds me of this story. But in this case it seems to run in the family.

Hunter shoots huge wolf in northern Idaho

COEUR D’ALENE — As the woman walked by the truck with the tailgate down, she glanced at what lay in the bed of the pickup parked outside Fish and Game’s

www.idahostatejournal.com

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Misjudging the size of wolves reminds me of this story. But in this case it seems to run in the family.

Hunter shoots huge wolf in northern Idaho

COEUR D’ALENE — As the woman walked by the truck with the tailgate down, she glanced at what lay in the bed of the pickup parked outside Fish and Game’s

www.idahostatejournal.com

He estimated it to be 180#, does the article say how much it actually weighed, or where it was determined it originated from.

 

[westbranch]

He estimated it to be 180#, does the article say how much it actually weighed, or where it was determined it originated from.

It was the hunters estimate, he did not actually weigh it. Just brought in the skull and cape, and then people get mad when IDFG says there is no way it weighed that much.

There are guys in North Idaho shooting/trapping 15-20 wolves a season. If there were 120-150 lb wolves running around in the mountains here there would likely be pics of scales showing the weight but that doesn't seem to be happening.

The body/frame of a 90lb wolf is wayyy bigger than a 90 lb dog. And most people (myself included) have not encountered enough wolves to accurately judge them on the paw. That's why you get all sorts of people estimating that the wolf they saw cross a road or trail was 130 lbs. 99% chance it wasn't 100.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

"An Account of the Taxonomy of North American Wolves From Morphological and Genetic Analyses". N

Good read. The article includes the following quotations:

Development of even more powerful genetic markers has led to new, highly controversial interpretations, * * * * Other controversies include whether the current Great Lakes wolf population is evolutionarily representative of the historical population (Leonard and Wayne 2008) * * * and the taxonomic identity of wolves of Pacific coastal regions (Muñoz-Fuentes et al. 2009). The lack of consensus among researchers on so many important issues related to the taxonomy of North American wolves prompted the present review.

Differences in habitat have been correlated with variations in behavior, including migration and prey selection. For example, Kolenosky and Stanfield (1975) have described variation in Ontario wolves, where larger wolves of boreal forests specialize on moose Alces americanus and caribou Rangifer tarandus as prey, while smaller wolves in deciduous forest habitats specialize on white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus.

Trends of increasing size among wolves to the north and west of southern Ontario and Quebec have been noted in morphometric studies covering the Great Lakes region. The association of smaller wolves with white-tailed deer in deciduous forests and larger wolves with larger prey, such as moose and caribou, in boreal forests has been frequently cited (Kolenosky and Standfield 1975; Skeel and Carbyn 1977; Schmitz and Kolenosky 1985). When wolf skulls were divided by source habitat into deciduous forest (eastern wolf) and boreal forest (C. lupus), discriminant function analysis distinguished 75% of boreal wolves from eastern wolves, and boreal wolves were >25% larger in body mass (Kolenosky and Standfield 1975).

Differences in habitat can, however, coincide with subspecies boundaries and play a role in maintaining taxonomic distinctions when ranges are contiguous. In these instances, explanations based on habitat variation can also be taxonomically informative. These coastal–inland patterns of genetic and ecological divergence lend support to Nowak's (1995) boundary between C. l. nubilus and C. l. occidentalis in the Pacific Northwest.

The wolf population of coastal British Columbia was probably contiguous with the original populations of coastal Washington and Oregon, which were included by Goldman (1944) with Canis lupus fuscus, the type locality of which (near The Dalles, Oregon) was not coastal. Hall and Kelson (1959) included most of coastal British Columbia with the range of this subspecies. Bailey (1936) identified coastal wolves of Oregon as Canis lycaon gigas (type locality near Vancouver, Washington). Goldman (1944) included this name as a synonym of C. lupus fuscus. Understanding the phylogenetic relationship of coastal British Columbia and southeast Alaska wolves to other populations that Nowak (1995) included in C. l. nubilus is greatly impeded by the extirpation of that subspecies in inland portions of the western United States. Genetic study of historical remains from western Oregon and Washington would provide additional information for the taxonomic placements of Pacific Northwest wolves that have been based on traditional morphology and morphometrics.

Nowak's (1983, 1995) classification and evolutionary explanation characterizes C. l. nubilus as a medium-size wolf that was widespread in North America at the time of arrival of the larger C. l. occidentalis.

It is possible that further research will provide data that would change certain conclusions reached here. Longer sequences of mtDNA (most studies used approx. 200 to approx. 400 base pairs) could provide more robust resolution of both extant and historical populations. There are many more historical specimens in museum and government agency collections that have not yet had DNA characterized. Y-chromosome haplotypes from additional populations of wolves would provide an additional lineage marker to complement mtDNA data. Single nucleotide polymorphisms are now being studied in wolves, but most areas of North America remain sparsely sampled (Anderson et al. 2009; Gray et al. 2009; vonHoldt et al. 2011).

These “fuzzy” boundaries are a consequence of lineages of wolves that evolved elsewhere coming into contact with each other. Historical or modern boundaries should also not be viewed as static or frozen in any particular time. Our understanding of the historical interactions between subspecies or genetically different populations (e.g., Leonard et al. 2005) is that they are dynamic processes and boundaries can shift over time. Even with the great dispersal capabilities of wolves and their interaction in these intergrade zones, genetic indications of the independent evolution of the wolves here recognized as species or subspecies are still discernible on a continental scale.

This review was initiated because of the wide range of views expressed by different researchers and research groups on some major features of relationships and classification of North American wolves.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

It was the hunters estimate, he did not actually weigh it. Just brought in the skull and cape, and then people get mad when IDFG says there is no way it weighed that much.

I asked because the photo caption to the article says "While checking in his kill with Idaho Fish and Game Regional Wildlife Manager Jim Hayden on Feb. 23, Brett Pitcher, right, describes the details of his hunt in the St. Joe National Forest."

So either the article forgot to include how much it actually weighed, or ID F&G didn't weigh it, which is highly unlikely.

I was wondering if anyone knew more about this story so they could literally weigh in on how much the wolf actually weighed.

 

[westbranch]

I asked because the photo caption to the article says "While checking in his kill with Idaho Fish and Game Regional Wildlife Manager Jim Hayden on Feb. 23, Brett Pitcher, right, describes the details of his hunt in the St. Joe National Forest."

So either the article forgot to include how much it actually weighed, or ID F&G didn't weigh it, which is highly unlikely.

I was wondering if anyone knew more about this story so they could literally weigh in on how much the wolf actually weighed.

Not unlikely it wasn't weighed by F&G, highly likely. The full wolf is not required to be checked in. Only the skull and cape was brought to the check in and remainder of the wolf was left in the field. So it was never weighed. No doubt in my mind it was way closer to 100 lbs than 180.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Not unlikely it wasn't weighed by F&G, highly likely. The full wolf is not required to be checked in. Only the skull and cape was brought to the check in and remainder of the wolf was left in the field. So it was never weighed. No doubt in my mind it was way closer to 100 lbs than 180.

From that article and photo there's no evidence of what it weighed, except of the estimation of the person who actually shot it. Or are you judging it based on the head in the photo?

 

[220yotekiller]

Even the people that don't live in the rural areas are owners in the public trust that is wildlife. Like it or not.

If wildlife is just too much of an inconvenience, then move to town. You will be happier there. I've got neighbors that hate wildlife. They'd love to kill it all. They buy cats to keep outside to keep down the mice and chipmunks (and ever other damn form of small vertebrate life, including those on my property). All they want is a town lot with more elbow room. Wildlife is just a problem as far as they are concerned and I see this all over, including posters on hunting forums.

there is a difference between killing everthing that bothers you and keeping the preditors under control. lt's a lot different when they are killing your livestock that you use to make a living.
when l lived on the ranch in colorado we hunted coyotes hard, non lethal methods simply do not work, the best year we had, we killed 94 coyotes. we used everthing from traps to rifles, it knocked the population back a bit but nowhere near came to obliterating them completly and in the next few years the population was back up again.
everything needs managed, from moose to coyotes but it's the game populations that suffer when man decides to protect preditors instead of managing them.

 

[westbranch]

From that article and photo there's no evidence of what it weighed, except of the estimation of the person who actually shot it. Or are you judging it based on the head in the photo?

I am judging it based on the person's estimation which I am 100% confident is way overestimated. There is no way it was 180 lbs. Just the way it is. If he had said 120 I would say sure close enough.

I have seen enough black bears weighed that were estimated at 300 lbs that came in at 180-200 on a scale to know the vast majority of hunters can't estimate weights. Same with guys calling their big bodied 2.5 yr midwest whitetails 180 lbs field dressed when they were 145-150. And I can't field judge a black bear or whitetail worth a shit myself, but at least I can admit it.

 

[BuzzH]

I am judging it based on the person's estimation which I am 100% confident is way overestimated. There is no way it was 180 lbs. Just the way it is. If he had said 120 I would say sure close enough.

I have seen enough black bears weighed that were estimated at 300 lbs that came in at 180-200 on a scale to know the vast majority of hunters can't estimate weights. Same with guys calling their big bodied 2.5 yr midwest whitetails 180 lbs field dressed when they were 145-150. And I can't field judge a black bear or whitetail worth a shit myself, but at least I can admit it.

Most suck just as bad at estimating scores of horns and antlers as well.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I know a couple of guys who have weighed hundred of lions. Both of them would agree the layman will overestimate weight by about 50%.

 

[mtmuley]

It's eye opening to actually be up close and personal with a wolf. They look bigger than what they weigh for sure. mtmuley