Idaho Wolf Management
- Thread starter idnative1948
- Start date
montanadogs
New member
I understand what you guys are saying but the proof of subspecies is there. No subspecies of grey wolves? If they are all the same then were and why would they come up with this? A subspecies is an individual division within a species, meaning that the members of the subspecies are individual enough that they cannot be lumped together, but they are not so distinct that they are entirely different species. This biological specification can be a bit confusing, and subspecies are constantly being adjusted and changed to deal with new information.
A species is an individual class of organisms which are distinctive from other animals, and unable to breed with other groups of animals. Members of a species are defined on the basis of their differences, which may be quite diverse or very minimal. For example, you can probably think of a lot of differences between an elephant and a pet cat, because these animals are considered to be different species, but there are also differences between Indian and African elephants which lead them to be classified as being in different species, despite superficial resemblances.
Many people think of “species” as the terminal taxonomic rank, since it does imply a sense of finality. In fact, many species are extremely diverse, and as a result, the rank of “subspecies” emerged to do justice to this diversity. The different subspecies within a species are distinctive and unique from each other, but they are still capable of interbreeding.
Canis lupus familiaris, as opposed to the wolf Canis lupus lupus, or the dingo, Canis lupus dingo. All of these animals can interbreed, but they are morphologically distinct, and they lead very different lives. Within the genus of Canus, lupus is considered to be a “polytypic species,” meaning that it has a number of subspecies; a species with no subspecies is called a “monotypic species. So I've attached some web sites with the grey wolf subspecies info.
http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfSpecies/north_america.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus
http://www.cosmosmith.com/wolf_classification.html
Fox's and eagles were bad examples.
A species is an individual class of organisms which are distinctive from other animals, and unable to breed with other groups of animals. Members of a species are defined on the basis of their differences, which may be quite diverse or very minimal. For example, you can probably think of a lot of differences between an elephant and a pet cat, because these animals are considered to be different species, but there are also differences between Indian and African elephants which lead them to be classified as being in different species, despite superficial resemblances.
Many people think of “species” as the terminal taxonomic rank, since it does imply a sense of finality. In fact, many species are extremely diverse, and as a result, the rank of “subspecies” emerged to do justice to this diversity. The different subspecies within a species are distinctive and unique from each other, but they are still capable of interbreeding.
Canis lupus familiaris, as opposed to the wolf Canis lupus lupus, or the dingo, Canis lupus dingo. All of these animals can interbreed, but they are morphologically distinct, and they lead very different lives. Within the genus of Canus, lupus is considered to be a “polytypic species,” meaning that it has a number of subspecies; a species with no subspecies is called a “monotypic species. So I've attached some web sites with the grey wolf subspecies info.
http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfSpecies/north_america.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus
http://www.cosmosmith.com/wolf_classification.html
Fox's and eagles were bad examples.
Brentster7189
New member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2010
- Messages
- 398
I understand what you are saying montanadogs. But to get back to the point of why you are explaining all this. Are you trying to come up with an legal arguement that the wolves that are in fact here are not the ones that are native to this area so that is the reason to not have them here?
Getting back to wolves in general, all these legal hoops, and these wildlife groups...what has happened to this country that no one has any real common sense about the issue and what needs to be done about it. That the federal goverment should have so much control over everything is ridiculous. We as a state need to take control of some of these things ourselves, and fight the feds on them. Calling the wolf an endandered species is ridiculous...I mean how many of them do you really need. They aren't really doing any of the wildlife groups any good anyways they can't look at them, all they have is a picture in their head of a pack of wolves on an open meadow with all their pups rolling around and playing...not the same picture as I have in my head that's for sure.
I guess if I had to choose I have no problem with wolves being here as long as we are able to manage them to a number that is fit to balance the big game heards. If that means other means of trimming their numbers besides just firearm hunting, then that's what it will have to be. This is such a simple thing to grasp I can't even understand why people would not think this is the logical choice.
I rank wolves with mosquitoes..I could easily do without either, because neither one of them really serve a purpose to society.
Getting back to wolves in general, all these legal hoops, and these wildlife groups...what has happened to this country that no one has any real common sense about the issue and what needs to be done about it. That the federal goverment should have so much control over everything is ridiculous. We as a state need to take control of some of these things ourselves, and fight the feds on them. Calling the wolf an endandered species is ridiculous...I mean how many of them do you really need. They aren't really doing any of the wildlife groups any good anyways they can't look at them, all they have is a picture in their head of a pack of wolves on an open meadow with all their pups rolling around and playing...not the same picture as I have in my head that's for sure.
I guess if I had to choose I have no problem with wolves being here as long as we are able to manage them to a number that is fit to balance the big game heards. If that means other means of trimming their numbers besides just firearm hunting, then that's what it will have to be. This is such a simple thing to grasp I can't even understand why people would not think this is the logical choice.
I rank wolves with mosquitoes..I could easily do without either, because neither one of them really serve a purpose to society.
montanadogs
New member
Sorry, that is what I'm saying. The most of the wolves here now are not the native ones.
JoseCuervo
New member
They were all born here, and, accourding to the 14th amendment, they all have the right to be here. They are "natives", despite what ever colour your hate-filled glasses see.
montanadogs
New member
LOL that is funny.
Does anyone have a map or link to a study showing how far the wolves that came down on their own have gone south and how far the transplanted wolves have came north?
I'm really curious. I assume most of the wolves in MT, and at least all the ones North of I90 and West of I15 are descendants of the Ninemile and flathead packs that came down on their own. That's always been my thinking of it, and I'd like to know if it's wrong.
Moosie
Grand poopa
Brentster7189
New member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2010
- Messages
- 398
I don't doubt your statistics, but I do doubt it will get anything turned around. Most people know a mistake was made by introducing them back, we should just all move forward with trying to fix it by managing it.
Amen.
As to the taxonomy differences between the "northern" wolves and the "southern" wolves, most biologists agree that the taxonomy that divided the irremotus and the columbianus was discredited in the 70's. The reintroduction EIS points this out in a few places. While Red Wolves and Mexican wolves have distinct genetic differences, the wolves on the Rockies are all taxonomically similar. Furthermore, I've seen no scientific evidence to suggest that the wolves in MT, ID and WY are have any size difference than previous wolves. Most wolves average around 80 pounds, with the trophies at about 110-120.
But again, Brenster nails it. It's not a good argument to make, just like arguing the wisdom of reintroduction. They're here, let's focus on getting them delisted and managed.
montanadogs
New member
Ben- Your right on with your post. Everyone,:W: The more research I've done in the last couple of days I've found that most of everything about the rocky mtn wolves subspecies is still and has been discredited since the 70's. I've put up the argument and the more I researched the more I found discrediting my argument.
Any news on Montana's appeal to Molloy's decision? Last I heard they said that they were appealing.
Any news on Montana's appeal to Molloy's decision? Last I heard they said that they were appealing.
Yes, FWP will still appeal. The Commission voted on the 5th (same day as relisting) and instructed FWP to file. Most everyone thinks that it won't fly, but stranger things have happened. I was at the meeting on Friday where Maurier and Lane (legal counsel for FWP) discussed options, and their thinking is that they will move forward with the appeal, try to downlist the endangered wolves north of I-90, seek some kind of 10(j) proposals, look at other options as they relate to getting a hunt (though those all look bleak as well).
Anything that happens, won't happen quick. If WY changes their plan in the next legislative session, then we could have a delisting rule that would stick, even under the inevitable litigation from the litigants.
Another option that has some merit is a congressional delisting. It would meet a huge amount of resistance from enviro groups, and many middle of the groups conservation groups too, but it could be done. Baucus is looking at how to do this, as I understand it.
Anything that happens, won't happen quick. If WY changes their plan in the next legislative session, then we could have a delisting rule that would stick, even under the inevitable litigation from the litigants.
Another option that has some merit is a congressional delisting. It would meet a huge amount of resistance from enviro groups, and many middle of the groups conservation groups too, but it could be done. Baucus is looking at how to do this, as I understand it.
JoseCuervo
New member
Welcome to the '80's; remember to part your hair in the middle and feather it back on both sides, buy a new pair of Levi 501's and get ready for the premier of the new move Fast Times at Ridgemont High. I hear there is a an up and coming young actor named Sean Penn in it....
Brentster7189
New member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2010
- Messages
- 398
I wonder what any of us can do besides sit on the sideline and watch all this unfold. We can speculate on all these things, and present data and theory's to each other. But none of it is really helping the cause any. It is easy to see that a lot of people have a lot of sound advice, and legitimate arguments to make. It would be nice if this could be directed in some way to accomplishing what we want done. Any ideas on things that the average joe hunter could do. Sometimes things seem like they are small and won't accomplish much, but a lot of small things make a big thing that could mean something.
Maybe we could set up some F&G totes, like there is for fish heads, and bird wings. We could put wolf tails in it so the biologists could gather more straight out of the trenches data? Just kidding.
Maybe we could set up some F&G totes, like there is for fish heads, and bird wings. We could put wolf tails in it so the biologists could gather more straight out of the trenches data? Just kidding.
One thing everyone should do and that is join an active sportsmen club. There are good rod and gun clubs all over the state that are battling this issue as we speak. On the state level there is the Montana Wildlife Federation and the Montana Bow Hunters Assoc. Make sure you are a member. All though it may not seem like it at times there are guys out there battling for the hunter.
http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com/article.php/2010082516195371
FYI - not getting a lot of play right now, but this went out to all the major dailies in MT and the weeklies, as well as the congressional delegation, land board and FWP.
FYI - not getting a lot of play right now, but this went out to all the major dailies in MT and the weeklies, as well as the congressional delegation, land board and FWP.
TOM IN TENNESSEE
New member
From my barstool, Jose, anchor babies were NOT covered by the 14th Amendment---it was for chillin of slaves only! I don't object to the 14th covering "coolies" and their offspring during the "opening of the West"
If and when WYO awakens and joins the rest of the world, it may make no difference....the wolves are spreading into WA and OR and they don't have a mgmt plan....
If and when WYO awakens and joins the rest of the world, it may make no difference....the wolves are spreading into WA and OR and they don't have a mgmt plan....
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Tom, Oregon already has one. It was concluded in 2005, Washington will finalize theirs by the end of this year. Bar Stools aren't the best place to talk politics or game management.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/wolf_plan.pdf
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/wolf_plan.pdf
montanadogs
New member
Wolves are slowly heading into their home range. ND, MI, WI, MN all have some now. They may not be the huge populations that we have in the west but they do have them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
