Meateater wolf podcast vs Kifaru Wolf Podcast

[MtGomer]

Would you expect anything less from Kifarucast?

Kermit sips tea.

With his pinky up.

 

[sneaky]

"Evasive, oblivious Meat Eater biologist sips tea"

But that's none of her business

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[HellsCanyon]

I lasted 10 minutes on the Eastmans podcast.

When you don't even know how Colorado got to this point, saying "some Congressman or Senator put it on the ballot", I'm done. 5 seconds on Google will get you the answer.

Colorado's hands are tied without a federally approved management plan. Bitching about wolves eating Elk and Moose does nothing to that end; we all know what they do. People assume a passed ballot measure trumps the USFWS wolf plan. The Deputy Director told me their lawyers don't know what, if any, impact the measure will have on their actions at this point. A passed measure may actually do nothing to compel the Service to bring in Wolves. Regardless, any wolf inside the state is an endangered species and until such time there is an approved plan in place which would delist them under that plan, the feds have control.
The feds didn't introduce a single wolf to Oregon, they don't need to bring any to Colorado either. If it's suitable habitat they'll come on their own.

Agreed. Except I made it about 2 minutes... The guy asking questions came across quite biased right out of the gate. If you expect to have any productive discussion about such controversial topics you need to have a bit more tact imo.

Mike

 

[Clarktar]

I would agree that multiple issues are leading to decreased animal numbers in Idaho. From hunting pressure, urban sprawl and very suspect game management. But I think pre-wolf we had more room for error in regards to winter kill, predation, hunting pressure, miss management, wildfires, prescribed burns, and politics. Now we have zero room for error in many areas and the wolf is the reason IMO. Maybe if we would have let them get here on there own it would not have been so drastic on the ungulates or the wildlife management agencies.

I would love to hear just one wildlife biologist say we really ****** up!

We ****** up.

But I'm a fisheries biologist

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[LostArra]

In case there are people who don't want to believe that wolves kill for sport. Here is documentation of sport killing by wolves. As reported by CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/us/wyoming-wolf-pack-elk-slaughter/index.html

I don't understand this opinion that wolves are a different type of sadistic killer. They just happen to efficiently kill stuff we like to hunt and eat. If wolves lived on skunks and gophers would we care how many they slaughtered? Is their behavior different than a raccoon or bobcat killing everything in the chicken coop? My dog kills every single trespassing squirrel that enters our property. Never eats them and no one would ever mistake my mutt for a wolf. I don't see a wolf as a more sinister killer but that doesn't mean we should be importing them to the hen house. And we definitely need management to control the ones that are here.

What caught my eye in the CNN article is the fact they were feeding the elk so they were probably stacked up like Texas whitetails at a corn feeder. Easy to see a frenzy of killing happening there.

 

[sneaky]

I don't understand this opinion that wolves are a different type of sadistic killer. They just happen to efficiently kill stuff we like to hunt and eat. If wolves lived on skunks and gophers would we care how many they slaughtered? Is their behavior different than a raccoon or bobcat killing everything in the chicken coop? My dog kills every single trespassing squirrel that enters our property. Never eats them and no one would ever mistake my mutt for a wolf. I don't see a wolf as a more sinister killer but that doesn't mean we should be importing them to the hen house. And we definitely need management to control the ones that are here.

What caught my eye in the CNN article is the fact they were feeding the elk so they were probably stacked up like Texas whitetails at a corn feeder. Easy to see a frenzy of killing happening there.

Those feed grounds aren't quite like that. Some are actually pretty dispersed.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[elkstabber]

I don't understand this opinion that wolves are a different type of sadistic killer. They just happen to efficiently kill stuff we like to hunt and eat. If wolves lived on skunks and gophers would we care how many they slaughtered? Is their behavior different than a raccoon or bobcat killing everything in the chicken coop? My dog kills every single trespassing squirrel that enters our property. Never eats them and no one would ever mistake my mutt for a wolf. I don't see a wolf as a more sinister killer but that doesn't mean we should be importing them to the hen house. And we definitely need management to control the ones that are here.

What caught my eye in the CNN article is the fact they were feeding the elk so they were probably stacked up like Texas whitetails at a corn feeder. Easy to see a frenzy of killing happening there.

I posted that link from CNN that documented a pack of 9 wolves that killed 19 elk for those who don't believe that they kill for sport. There are several here, which is sad. Maybe "sport" was the wrong word. As LostArra pointed out raccoon or bobcats kill every chicken in a coop (a raccoon killed my neighbors 24 chickens in one night). It's not like the wolf is different than a raccoon, or bobcat, or even LostArra's mutt. The problem is that there are a number of city dwellers who don't raise chickens and don't get outside. They are educated by what they see on television or the internet. There are a number of actual real voters who honestly believe that wolves don't kill for "sport". That is one of our biggest problems is that we need to educate those voters.


Regarding LostArra's last point the "feed grounds" in WY are frequently a wide valley 10-15 miles long. So, no, they are not stacked like Texas whitetails at a corn feeder.

 

[LostArra]

Regarding LostArra's last point the "feed grounds" in WY are frequently a wide valley 10-15 miles long. So, no, they are not stacked like Texas whitetails at a corn feeder.

I stand corrected on the elk feeding. I've just seen photos of elk on a ranch haystack and figured it was something like that.

 

[idahohikker]

I'm with Aron on this one. I'll try to explain it better. I'm sure that people would go to Estes Park to see wolves, that is if wolves were there to be seen. Do you think that people would go in big numbers if they didn't see wolves? Rocky Mountain NP had more visitors last year than Yellowstone NP. Rocky Mountain NP is 1/10 the size of Yellowstone NP. Obviously people are going to Rocky Mountain NP to see wildlife that isn't wolves.

While wolves can realistically (mostly) live their whole lives in Yellowstone NP that can't happen at Rocky Mountain NP because it's just too small. And it's more roaded than Yellowstone, giving the wolves less of a reason to stay. I'm sure that visitor numbers will spike when wolves are to be seen, but there is no doubt that the visitors will drop off when the elk/deer/moose/sheep/etc aren't there to be seen after a year or two. The visitors will be just like the elk/deer/moose/sheep/etc population; once they are gone they're not coming back.

Interesting what you said about Ted Turner running eco tours. Because that directly conflicts with the fact that African eco tours are dying off and have been for the last decade. Of course, Ted Turner doesn't need to make money on eco tours either. Pretty much anybody else running an eco tour needs to be profitable.

Most places where wolves are present they are simply not viewable. Yellowstone NP might be the only exception. It will be difficult to have eco tours or eco tourism of any kind when the animals aren't viewable.

Very true. In Idaho people were stoked to see wolves when they were reintroduced and then quickly figured out you had a .001% chance of ever seeing one so they gave up and essentially no one cares about it anymore. Pre wolf hunting there were some places were they could be seen regularly. So I guess that could be the liberal paradise being predicted here for Colorado where there's no hunting and the wolves grow very quickly and totally nail the elk. You see wolves in that case and an occasional elk. The pace of wolf growth is low at first and then becomes exponential growth within a few years because they're breeding machines.

Also, the people thinking Canadian wolves aren't a different non-native subspecies haven't researched or are lapping up information from their favorite wolf lover. The non-native wolves make the reintroduction really a less valuable and more destructive exercise.

It's not that you can't ask questions but some answers aren't hard. I understand this is a new concept when you weren't in firsthand on a prior reintroduction.

 

[WCS]

"Also, the people thinking Canadian wolves aren't a different non-native subspecies haven't researched or are lapping up information from their favorite wolf lover. The non-native wolves make the reintroduction really a less valuable and more destructive exercise."

Do you have any links to any scientific articles that provide any evidence?

 

[207-12A]

I don’t see a problem with wolf reintroduction as long as states are given the ability to come up with their own management solutions. This means trapping and hunting. Perhaps I’m biased as a spoiled Alaska guy but our wolves have been here forever and are here to stay. The difference I suppose is that we’re allowed to pound them with generous seasons and 5-10 allowed a year in most units. I’m in favor of wolves on the landscape which human activity has previously removed them from, and I applaud Meateater for bringing on a left of center viewpoint. I do wish Rinella had pried in to her a little more though.

 

[idahohikker]

"Also, the people thinking Canadian wolves aren't a different non-native subspecies haven't researched or are lapping up information from their favorite wolf lover. The non-native wolves make the reintroduction really a less valuable and more destructive exercise."

Do you have any links to any scientific articles that provide any evidence?

Yeah the link is to google. Use it for a minute and you'll find some. Thanks for the question.

 

[idahohikker]

I don’t see a problem with wolf reintroduction as long as states are given the ability to come up with their own management solutions. This means trapping and hunting. Perhaps I’m biased as a spoiled Alaska guy but our wolves have been here forever and are here to stay. The difference I suppose is that we’re allowed to pound them with generous seasons and 5-10 allowed a year in most units. I’m in favor of wolves on the landscape which human activity has previously removed them from, and I applaud Meateater for bringing on a left of center viewpoint. I do wish Rinella had pried in to her a little more though.

This is like saying you don't mind lions if they don't bite anyone. You're right that wolves would be okay if they were managed in line with early promises. When Idaho couldn't manage them after the populations was 10 times the ultimate reintroduction goal for years and years due to litigation (and Idahos process was way easier than Wyoming) you can see how there isn't really wolf management until it's far far too late. That's how you get 90% decrease in elk herds and closed moose hunts in units while the wolves are going bonkers wiping everything out.

Litigation stalls out everything with regards to species management and skews the whole game right in the hands of reintroduction enthusiasts.

 

[Rob Patuto]

Ryan....how have our paths not crossed?
You should have Mike Schlegel from Grangeville on. He was a biologist in central Idaho a bit before that time and has kept some pretty got facts on population numbers, good dude, and he is not afraid to call BS.

In many ways the IDFG caught undeserved heat in the whole Wolf introduction story. They were kept out of the plan by politicians within the state who did not want Wolves and didnt want Idahoans footing any of the bill. Sounds great on the surface but then we had no say. The Nez Perce tribe was given the job the IDFG should have had. Then introduce our F'ed up court system and the dogs ran a muck well after the goal of 100 or 10 breeding pair was reached. yes that was the number set by the feds but Idaho bumped it to 150 or 15 breeding pair voluntarily.

While I have great heartburn at times with the IDFG at times over a multitude of issues I believe they took a great deal of unwarranted blame in the Wolf introduction.

It is a long complex story but they are here to stay.

Game management in The Frank Church is near impossible due to Wilderness restrictions. I tried to point that out to local sportsman here when the idea of a Scotchman Peak Wilderness was being floated. I like roadless areas as much as the next guy but it comes at a steep price in wildlife management

 

[elkstabber]

I don’t see a problem with wolf reintroduction as long as states are given the ability to come up with their own management solutions. This means trapping and hunting. Perhaps I’m biased as a spoiled Alaska guy but our wolves have been here forever and are here to stay. The difference I suppose is that we’re allowed to pound them with generous seasons and 5-10 allowed a year in most units. I’m in favor of wolves on the landscape which human activity has previously removed them from, and I applaud Meateater for bringing on a left of center viewpoint. I do wish Rinella had pried in to her a little more though.

There are certainly some here that are against wolf reintroduction, but I think most here are in complete agreement with you about reintroduction and then controlled hunting. Allow the states to manage them.

The problem with this is that Colorado's politics are highly unlikely to ever allow wolf hunting. That's the problem with wolves in Colorado.

Its the same problem with mountain lions in California. Hell, in California you can't even own a stuffed mountain lion that you killed legally in another state (California Game and Fish Code, Division 4, Part 3, Chapter 10). I would expect that Colorado will soon treat wolves the same as California treats lions.

 

[idahohikker]

Ryan....how have our paths not crossed?
You should have Mike Schlegel from Grangeville on. He was a biologist in central Idaho a bit before that time and has kept some pretty got facts on population numbers, good dude, and he is not afraid to call BS.

In many ways the IDFG caught undeserved heat in the whole Wolf introduction story. They were kept out of the plan by politicians within the state who did not want Wolves and didnt want Idahoans footing any of the bill. Sounds great on the surface but then we had no say. The Nez Perce tribe was given the job the IDFG should have had. Then introduce our F'ed up court system and the dogs ran a muck well after the goal of 100 or 10 breeding pair was reached. yes that was the number set by the feds but Idaho bumped it to 150 or 15 breeding pair voluntarily.

While I have great heartburn at times with the IDFG at times over a multitude of issues I believe they took a great deal of unwarranted blame in the Wolf introduction.

It is a long complex story but they are here to stay.

Game management in The Frank Church is near impossible due to Wilderness restrictions. I tried to point that out to local sportsman here when the idea of a Scotchman Peak Wilderness was being floated. I like roadless areas as much as the next guy but it comes at a steep price in wildlife management

Agreed. Fish and Game came across as kind of dumb and wolf favorable because they didn't really acknowledge effects of wolves but they were scientists waiting to perform studies to compare wolf effects vs. habitat and everything else and they felt huge pressure and tried to be careful with what they said. Now that the story has unfolded the biologists I've spoken with are much more willing to note wolf effects as significant, particularly in backcountry areas.

But this all was thrown off because of the f'd up court system like you say. Good quote! It's terrible how much prior it gives the environmental groups over the actual wildlife managers.

 

[Gobbler36]

Bang on, people love predators. When I was in Yellowstone we saw elk, mule deer and Bison. The bison were the coolest thing I had ever seen but many people treated them like pests, just upset they they were in the way. Wolves on the other hand were insanely poplar. A hundred cars lined up on the highway just hoping for a glimpse at wolves 200 yds away. Tripods with spotting scopes and telephoto lenses lined the shoulder. By far this was the most popular animal in the park. People were willing to wait hours just to see them in the distance.

Here in BC bear watching tours are huge, big money coming in for this as well.

I love predators and think they should be part of every ecosystem, it is natural. However, we have augmented the natural landscape so much that we must be part of the management. We have set-up a habitat that tips the scales in favour of predators and if we do not balance this out by removing predators then we are in big trouble.

I think this is the most fitting response and most logical of any but crazies on each side will never come to this conclusion because ultimately people don’t like solutions, they prefer to be offended and mad

 

[207-12A]

This is like saying you don't mind lions if they don't bite anyone. You're right that wolves would be okay if they were managed in line with early promises. When Idaho couldn't manage them after the populations was 10 times the ultimate reintroduction goal for years and years due to litigation (and Idahos process was way easier than Wyoming) you can see how there isn't really wolf management until it's far far too late. That's how you get 90% decrease in elk herds and closed moose hunts in units while the wolves are going bonkers wiping everything out.

Litigation stalls out everything with regards to species management and skews the whole game right in the hands of reintroduction enthusiasts.

Not sure what you mean by the whole teeth out of the lion thing. A guy was killed by a grizzly right behind my house last fall, I still hunt and hike all the same, and enjoy seeing grizzlies and wolves. My point is that human hunters sense of entitlement has gotten to the point where we feel that we should be the only apex predator on the landscape. If the politicians in your state are dishonest, that’s on them and those that elected them.

 

[JLW66]

It was weird when the biologist said that when Lewis and Clark crossed through Montana that the game was rich because they had never been hunted.

Duh!!! I'm pretty sure that the Indians didn't all eat nuts and berries. Those bows and arrows weren't for show. Steve had to correct her but not enough in my opinion.

She was hard to listen to at times. She would only speak for Montana, and she repeatedly said that harvest numbers show that elk and deer harvest has not dropped since wolf reintroduction. But she also acknowledged that some hunters are finding drainages void of ungulates. Her response was to keep looking.

When Colorado came up she said that the Mexican Gray wolf would be a better choice. Then she said that it is significantly different than the timber wolf. Then she said that she didn't want to talk any more about Mexican Gray wolves. She absolutely stopped. Why??? Because the timber wolf will likely cause the extinction of all wild Mexican Gray wolves within the next 10 years or so. Timber wolves disperse 500 miles or more according to her own studies. They will leave Colorado and go kill the little Mexican Gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona. There is no doubt.

She clearly danced around some of Steve's questions and surprisingly, he didn't call her out much. Numerous times he asked her about the wolves in Yellowstone and especially Idaho. She claimed that she was only a spectator and wasn't knowledgeable about Yellowstone or Idaho. BS !!!

I listened to a Randy Newberg podcast about the Mexican wolf reintroduction. The Arizona Game and Fish person was worried about the wolves coming down from the North just like you mentioned. Big wolves kill small wolves. Im thinking they are already in CO, if not it wont be long. They are just across the state line in WY as of a couple years ago. They have documented cases of animals wandering into AZ, granted they are probably loners.

 

[idahohikker]

Not sure what you mean by the whole teeth out of the lion thing. A guy was killed by a grizzly right behind my house last fall, I still hunt and hike all the same, and enjoy seeing grizzlies and wolves. My point is that human hunters sense of entitlement has gotten to the point where we feel that we should be the only apex predator on the landscape. If the politicians in your state are dishonest, that’s on them and those that elected them.

The politicians aren't dishonest is that's the federal management plan waa for 100 wolves and the court system is so ridiculous that Idaho was at 800 wolves very very conservatively at the time and no hunting was allowed while arguments were made about how wolves were in danger. With liberal hunting seasons we were never anywhere close to 100 wolves. The reintroduction process is a joke because federal managers can't do their jobs and manage the species at all. We all just wait around for the jack*** bafoons to get their lawsuits dismissed. There was 0 logical argument to be made that the 100 wolf number was in any level of threat. It was purely a delay tactic that should've been quickly dismissed.

If that disaster was averted wolves wouldn't have decimated the herds like they did and the rebound wouldn't have taken so long. Rebound I mean in areas where they can be effectively hunted and managed, not large wilderness areas.