Don’t kill wolves – just keep them away

[westbranch]

The introduced wolves here in Montana are non native and have wiped out 3/4 of the Elk and Moose population. They also wiped out the few remaining native wolves.
My Dentist had a painting of a wolf in his office and I told him that his wolf pic was upside down. He looked at me funny and I said yes, a proper wolf has his four legs pointing straight up to the sky.

One of those Canadian Super Wolves stole my tundra's catalytic converter up the North Fork of the Clearwater.

 

[RealMuddyboots]

I have no problem with non rural public having say in predators as long as they also share in the stocking locations.

 

[RobertD]

If we're adhering to an idea of science-based wildlife mgmt, then to me it's wrong for city goers from Denver to be in charge of wolf reintroduction in the same way it's wrong to let public sentiment in Montana impede mule deer mgmt. Science is supposed to stand between the wildlife and the whims of large groups of (biased) humans.

 

[Sytes]

Imagine, if you will, bison /game farm fencing neighbor acreage upon hundreds(+) touching, corner abutment.
Hundreds of owners operating in this capacity.

Now, imagine, if you will, Huntzinger 10-15 years in the future scratching his head at the impediments he fostered, wondering why all wildlife has lost their corridor routing and isolated to small tracts.

"science-based and socially responsible" welcome to enhanced wildlife sub-division living quarters - you have entered the twilight zone.

 

[BrentD]

If we're adhering to an idea of science-based wildlife mgmt, then to me it's wrong for city goers from Denver to be in charge of wolf reintroduction in the same way it's wrong to let public sentiment in Montana impede mule deer mgmt. Science is supposed to stand between the wildlife and the whims of large groups of (biased) humans.

Why? Are city people science-challenged? Frankly, I see a lot more science-driven policy from the "city" folk than the country folk. By a huge margin actually.

And that is definitely NOT what sciences is supposed to do. Scientists are not peacekeepers.

 

[RobertD]

Why? Are city people science-challenged? Frankly, I see a lot more science-driven policy from the "city" folk than the country folk. By a huge margin actually.

And that is definitely NOT what sciences is supposed to do. Scientists are not peacekeepers.

First part: Not just city people, all people. I expect wildlife management professionals to have a better handle on the issues wildlife face than the general population through better data and more interaction with that data. I included Montana mule deer hunters specifically to point out that proximity to the wildlife doesn't necessarily give someone a leg up on city people in that regard.

Second part: Don't mean they are peacekeepers, but a buffer between the whims of biased groups of humans and wildlife through sound, data-based decision making. I don't really know how to word it more effectively to illustrate the point, but I certainly didn't mean science exists to keep oeace between user groups.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Not trolling at all. You can't dismiss the nonrural public. You may be trolling when you call them "terrible drivers" but they would say much the same about how you would drive their wildlife over that same cliff instead. The public trust is what it is. A lot of land owners feel like they shouldn't have to tolerate it. That their interests and convenience supersedes others. I guess it's just the way of the world.

Not sure what you mean by saying other may think I'm driving "their wildlife over that same cliff". "Their wildlife" is perhaps a misnomer if only because they have no idea what's happening, and because a lot of that wildlife (elk, deer) is gone. Literally.

They don't have boots on the ground. I do. They're in a condominium watching YouTube videos of wolf pack pups frolicking in the grassy meadow, chasing butterflies (not the wolf pack from first The Hangover movie).

Then after they wipe away tears of joy, they declare we need wolves. Lots of wolves. More wolves.

I've seen first hand what's happened over the past 35 years; a lot of your friends in the nonrural space have not, because again, most of those "owners" of wildlife are not -- and have never been -- where a lot of wildlife actually is (or rather, "was").

So in that sense they're not real stakeholders (or even "steak holders" because red meat is bad for you). If you don't prefer my visual of them driving the figurative bus over the cliff, then maybe the phrase, "armchair quarterback" is more fitting.

And in some other posts in this thread, people mention science. I'm not a scientist, but if I was, I imagine one thing that should be done, is to observe what's actually happening, where it's happening, and why it's happening. Most of the nonrural "owners" don't.

You're also ignoring that unfortunately, sometimes "science" is "governed" by political policy. So if certain people who want wolves (and not even the native species that previously inhabited the region, but a bigger version of it) are also the ones holding the purse strings to a lot of the funding of a State wildlife agency (and/or are holding the power to appoint or dismiss certain people from that agency), then you can guess how the agency may need to proceed.

Then things get way out of balance. Elk and deer numbers plummet. But don't worry, "like, OMG wolf pups are totally so cute!"

 

[NAHMINT]

Wonder how deep you would have to bury the fence cause they could dig too. Probably a 15-20’ fence total, for miles - completely realistic.

Makes me think of the DINGO Fence downunder in AUSTRALIA.......

 

[NAHMINT]

Not sure what you mean by saying other may think I'm driving "their wildlife over that same cliff". "Their wildlife" is perhaps a misnomer if only because they have no idea what's happening, and because a lot of that wildlife (elk, deer) is gone. Literally.

They don't have boots on the ground. I do. They're in a condominium watching YouTube videos of wolf pack pups frolicking in the grassy meadow, chasing butterflies (not the wolf pack from first The Hangover movie).

Then after they wipe away tears of joy, they declare we need wolves. Lots of wolves. More wolves.

I've seen first hand what's happened over the past 35 years; a lot of your friends in the nonrural space have not, because again, most of those "owners" of wildlife are not -- and have never been -- where a lot of wildlife actually is (or rather, "was").

So in that sense they're not real stakeholders (or even "steak holders" because red meat is bad for you). If you don't prefer my visual of them driving the figurative bus over the cliff, then maybe the phrase, "armchair quarterback" is more fitting.

And in some other posts in this thread, people mention science. I'm not a scientist, but if I was, I imagine one thing that should be done, is to observe what's actually happening, where it's happening, and why it's happening. Most of the nonrural "owners" don't.

You're also ignoring that unfortunately, sometimes "science" is "governed" by political policy. So if certain people who want wolves (and not even the native species that previously inhabited the region, but a bigger version of it) are also the ones holding the purse strings to a lot of the funding of a State wildlife agency (and/or are holding the power to appoint or dismiss certain people from that agency), then you can guess how the agency may need to proceed.

Then things get way out of balance. Elk and deer numbers plummet. But don't worry, "like, OMG wolf pups are totally so cute!"

Some good points.......science be DAMMED !!! we now have NO GRIZZLY HUNTING up here because of politics.......and a long scientific report was quietly swept under the rug.

 

[tzone]

I like wolves. They're cool animal. So I say just kill most of them, not all of them.

 

[corndog1]

The introduced wolves here in Montana are non native and have wiped out 3/4 of the Elk and Moose population. They also wiped out the few remaining native wolves.
My Dentist had a painting of a wolf in his office and I told him that his wolf pic was upside down. He looked at me funny and I said yes, a proper wolf has his four legs pointing straight up to the sky.

Did he find a lot of cavities after that?

 

[mtmuley]

(and not even the native species that previously inhabited the region, but a bigger version of it)

Funny. mtmuley

 

[Gus Chiggins]

"Wolves on Alaskan Island Shift to Hunting Sea Otters After Decimating Deer Population" (March 9, 2023)

Wolves on Alaskan Island Shift to Hunting Sea Otters After Decimating Deer Population

After killing of the deer population, wolves on a remote island in southeast Alaska have shifted to consume primarily sea otters.

www.fieldandstream.com

 

[tjones]

(and not even the native species that previously inhabited the region, but a bigger version of it)

Sigh, I thought we finally moved past this.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Sigh, I thought we finally moved past this.

I'm not a biologist, and I am a bit slow and otherwise obtuse, but as for it now being a "different wolf", that's what I've heard elsewhere. People do split hairs on whether it's the same wolf or not as before, now spreading in Oregon for example. If it's materially bigger than the one that use to be around, then it's different enough.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

In Oregon, note below the jump in minimum known wolf numbers, from just April 2020 (110), to 175 in 2021. So either someone got a lot better trying to count wolves, or the wolves were in more visible areas, or they multiplied. There's another thread about CO ointroducing at least 50 wolves in that state. That number will jump in a hurry.

The Evidence to Support or to Oppose Species Listing – Wolves in The State of Oregon

Wolves in the eastern part of Oregon were removed from the state’s ESA in 2015. The population in Oregon in 2015 was a minimum of 110 wolves and grew by 48 wolves from 2015 to April of 2020 (Landers; Wolf Conservation Center). The population continued to grow despite being removed from Oregon’s ESA thanks to the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Therefore, the species has shown that they can continue to thrive without the help of the endangered species act.

ODFW Frequently Asked Questions About Wolves

The minimum Oregon wolf count for 2021 was 175 wolves. ODFW documented 21 packs (four or more wolves traveling together in winter) with 16 breeding pairs of wolves in 2021. A breeding pair is an adult male and female wolf with at least two pups, which survive through the end of the year.

For a map and more information, see the Oregon Wolf Population webpage or visit the Specific Wolves and Wolf Packs page for current monitoring information on packs and areas of new resident wolf activity.

Specific Wolves and Wolf Packs in Oregon

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Funny. mtmuley

Are you saying they're not a bigger version than those in the 19th century [at least in Oregon]? Apologies if I missed some other debate.

 

[FI460]

Are you saying they're not a bigger version than those in the 19th century? Sorry if I missed some other debate.

Mammologists don't agree on the number of subspecies of American wolves. It's between like 5 and 25. I tend to believe it's on the lower side.

I do know that the average weight of adult wolves introduced into Yellowstone was 108 lbs.



I'd be interested in seeing a similar 19th century table on whatever we're calling the native wolf. The "great plains wolf" that I assume everyone is comparing reintroduced wolves to is said to have been between 60 and 110 lbs, and the northern rocky mountain wolf is 85-115. I suspect those numbers are estimates though.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Mammologists don't agree on the number of subspecies of American wolves. It's between like 5 and 25. I tend to believe it's on the lower side.

I do know that the average weight of adult wolves introduced into Yellowstone was 108 lbs.


I'd be interested in seeing a similar 19th century table on whatever we're calling the native wolf. The "great plains wolf" that I assume everyone is comparing reintroduced wolves to is said to have been between 60 and 110 lbs, and the northern rocky mountain wolf is 85-115. I suspect those numbers are estimates though.

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

I said what I did in part because based on interactions with wolves in NE Oregon over the past several years, these wolves are not small.

Recently a guy who had spent a fair time in Alaska and around wolves, saw a local one in an NE Oregon pack, which I think he said looked to be at least 130#.

Maybe we should nickname it "Tiny". Let's hope it has a tiny appetite, too.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Just to be clear, there is no real argument over whether they are the same wolves or bigger wolves, they are the same wolves.