Meateater wolf podcast vs Kifaru Wolf Podcast

[Boudreaux]

Now, post up some population data that isn't almost 30 years old.

"Staff counted 5,800 elk, including 1,361 elk (23.5 percent) inside Yellowstone National Park and 4,149 elk (71.5 percent) north of the park. The total count of 5,800 elk was 23 percent lower than the 7,579 elk observed during the 2018 trend count, and 23 percent lower than the 7,510 total elk counted during the 2016 classification survey, but higher than the 10-year average count of 5,399 elk. The long-term average of observed elk numbers since surveys began in 1976 is 10,634 elk, with a peak high count of 19,045 elk in 1994 and a low count of 3,915 elk observed in 2013."
Taken from April 4th 2019 Late Winter Survey of Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd

Don't get me wrong, I never said anything about wolves not hurting the population. I am a man of facts and data. Data shows they are down almost 50% from the average. Can't argue that, nor will I try

Bergman's rule may apply, but that only solidifies the fact that they brought larger wolves in and released them.

Due tell me how they could have found smaller wolves? My point is they introduced the species that was already existing in the area AND they are the SAME SPECIES. So please stop saying they were different species, because saying so is wrong.

 

[sneaky]

"Staff counted 5,800 elk, including 1,361 elk (23.5 percent) inside Yellowstone National Park and 4,149 elk (71.5 percent) north of the park. The total count of 5,800 elk was 23 percent lower than the 7,579 elk observed during the 2018 trend count, and 23 percent lower than the 7,510 total elk counted during the 2016 classification survey, but higher than the 10-year average count of 5,399 elk. The long-term average of observed elk numbers since surveys began in 1976 is 10,634 elk, with a peak high count of 19,045 elk in 1994 and a low count of 3,915 elk observed in 2013."
Taken from April 4th 2019 Late Winter Survey of Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd

Don't get me wrong, I never said anything about wolves not hurting the population. I am a man of facts and data. Data shows they are down almost 50% from the average. Can't argue that, nor will I try



Due tell me how they could have found smaller wolves? My point is they introduced the species that was already existing in the area AND they are the SAME SPECIES. So please stop saying they were different species, because saying so is wrong.

Since you were around in the early 1900s to see the original wolves native to the region I'll defer to your experience. Skull measurements told the tale. I'll take that as scientific evidence to validate my point. You can argue however you want, we will just agree to disagree.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[idahohikker]

"Staff counted 5,800 elk, including 1,361 elk (23.5 percent) inside Yellowstone National Park and 4,149 elk (71.5 percent) north of the park. The total count of 5,800 elk was 23 percent lower than the 7,579 elk observed during the 2018 trend count, and 23 percent lower than the 7,510 total elk counted during the 2016 classification survey, but higher than the 10-year average count of 5,399 elk. The long-term average of observed elk numbers since surveys began in 1976 is 10,634 elk, with a peak high count of 19,045 elk in 1994 and a low count of 3,915 elk observed in 2013."
Taken from April 4th 2019 Late Winter Survey of Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd

Don't get me wrong, I never said anything about wolves not hurting the population. I am a man of facts and data. Data shows they are down almost 50% from the average. Can't argue that, nor will I try



Due tell me how they could have found smaller wolves? My point is they introduced the species that was already existing in the area AND they are the SAME SPECIES. So please stop saying they were different species, because saying so is wrong.

Quite the attitude by the wolf scientist. You quoted an EIS which was full of a bunch of nonsense that was shown to be way off--how they thought wolves would be less impactful, less apt at breeding, more responsive to hunting management. As someone with a doctorate degree I'd be embarrassed to be anywhere near that material.

I will look up the subspecies material if I ever feel the desire. Your data from pre introduction is very speculative. Spottings and isolated kills here and there. You don't rely on tiny data sets. Also, wolves could and likely did move down from Canada but that doesn't prove much of anything. The wolves around in 1900 in Idaho very likely were smaller than today and if not a different subspecies then carrying significant differences nonetheless.

You seem very dedicated to the wolf reintroduction business and loose beliefs that you call facts.

 

[BeastOfTheTrees]

If I remember correctly the biologist on the Meateater podcast said the wolves will make their own way into CO.

Is it currently illegal or legal to shoot a wolf in CO, say one shows up tomorrow?

God Bless.

She said they eventually will of course and that a few will likely have already been into Colorado..... I think bottom line we got wolves now and prey species will be affected of course but we will just have to live with this just like the old days

 

[MtGomer]

You really want to muddy the waters listen to Randy Newberg's pod cast #103 where he talks with Jim Heffelfinger about the Mexican grey wolf in Arizona and New Mexico and what a wolf introduction in Colorado would probably do to the Mexican wolf reinduction.


Richard

Everybody should listen to this episode

 

[slick]

Quite the attitude by the wolf scientist. You quoted an EIS which was full of a bunch of nonsense that was shown to be way off--how they thought wolves would be less impactful, less apt at breeding, more responsive to hunting management. As someone with a doctorate degree I'd be embarrassed to be anywhere near that material.

I will look up the subspecies material if I ever feel the desire. Your data from pre introduction is very speculative. Spottings and isolated kills here and there. You don't rely on tiny data sets. Also, wolves could and likely did move down from Canada but that doesn't prove much of anything. The wolves around in 1900 in Idaho very likely were smaller than today and if not a different subspecies then carrying significant differences nonetheless.

You seem very dedicated to the wolf reintroduction business and loose beliefs that you call facts.

You’re basing your opinion in speculation also.. just pointing that out

 

[idahohikker]

You’re basing your opinion in speculation also.. just pointing that out

Not about the various aspects of the EIS and early scientific ideas regarding wolves. You could state with near certainty that those were incorrect. They were way off. While there was some lack of knowledge where wolves were largely absent from the West, it's embarrassing to some extent that the scientists missed by so much regarding wolf predation and reproduction. They had other wolf populations they could look at. It's likely their personal biases in favor of reintroduction bled into their research. There was still scientists as least in name fighting endangered species status removal in 2009-2010 claiming there was danger of going under 100 wolves which is a professional embarrassment as far as an opinion.

Regarding the subspecies point it is speculative but from my research I think it's more likely to be a subspecies. Maybe some will dig up the studies and analysis of the subspecies information from a non-wolf lover perspective.

 

[Clarktar]

The size is interesting. 100+ lb king salmon on the Elwha were much larger then other individuals from other populations. But, same species. B run steelhead in the Clearwater.... Much bigger then other individuals found in other populations, but same species.

I don't know chit about wildlife. Just thinking outload while I read this thread on the commode.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[slick]

I think the information out there is so watered down between people who love or hate wolves. Science included, bias shows. What I was taught in college by a man who studied MT wolves (correction- Yellowstone wolves) was that current skull lengths were within 10% deviation of the predecessor wolves. (This individual has criticized FWP every year for a number of years that their wolf harvest is unsustainable- making me believe he is anti wolf hunting??) They very well could be a wrong ‘subspecies’ but if you have central AB wolves already coming down from AB into NW MT, and the Feds sourced wolves more like (smaller?) previous wolves and put them in Yellowstone those two populations would have met and bred within MT- diluting the distinct subspecies. I also think there is HUGE overlap between subspecies. A quick google scholar search on the subspecies - the first paper I read- were quoting averages (small sample size) and comparing them to the upper 10% of the other subspecies. That’s not exactly apples to apples.

This is all speculation as there is no way to know this now. But I truly believe that even if the Feds had brought wolves from the Great Lake states, we would be in the same scenario we are now.

 

[idahohikker]

I've asked it before and received no response.

How do I fill my wolf tags?

I can fill FIVE wolf tags here in Idaho for pennies. I just don't have a clue how to find one. I think the general sentiment here is that we have a problem with wolves. Well, I say we figure this out and help the ungulate populations with something we all can do now - hunt them.

Anyone have information to share? There shouldn't be any hesitation with sharing units or spots in this case. Anybody? PM me if you don't want to blast your spot.

Maybe we can make backcountry wolf hunting as popular as archery elk on social media

This is a great idea. The trouble is wolves are incredibly difficult to kill. They roam massive home ranges and often sense humans under 600 yards away so long shots and great hunting is required.

You can find wolves on the winter ranges of the Boise, Weiser, Smoky, Middle Fork, Salmon, McCall, Sawtooth, Selway, Lolo, and other Pandhandle zones. The problem is you could hunt for 60 straight days in the winter range and maybe see them once or twice. Outfitters in the heart of wolf country with tags for hunters each week for 5 months shoot 3-4 oftentimes. It's just hard to keep hunters enthused when the hunting is that hard. I've been through it as have most Idaho guys I know. It doesn't mean you don't still go after them but it's not like there's any real odds of success unlike deer, elk, bear.

If I was looking to be most in the center of the action I'd be in the winter range of the Middle Fork or Selway or Panhandle/Clearwater. Remote Central Idaho is tough to access in winter even by plane or boat so that's a reason why the wolves are out of control. It's also tough because the winter range is so long (30-40 miles). Winter range predator hunts in the Frank or Main Salmon winter range would be amazing.

For more realistic places I'd be looking at Lowman, Clayton, Salmon, Hailey, and the places in Northern Idaho with road access near winter range (not very familiar with up there).

The only way to narrow down is find travel corridors wolves often use in their big roaming runs. I have one near Boise I'd share by PM. Guys could help others that way but it's still a minor benefit IMO. Do I see trash wolf tracks there every time I go? Yes, do I ever see wolves? No, even though I've found kills.

 

[slick]

Others more knowledgeable should chime in, but trapping seems to be more effective. Sounds like once educated ya might not catch any of the pack again though? Maybe snare sets would be easier for them to not notice than a foothold? Not sure if that’s legal though.

 

[idahohikker]

Others more knowledgeable should chime in, but trapping seems to be more effective. Sounds like once educated ya might not catch any of the pack again though? Maybe snare sets would be easier for them to not notice than a foothold? Not sure if that’s legal though.

Trapping is way more effective. It was always fun to watch the wolf kill numbers in Idaho broken down by zone and hunting vs. trapping. And trapping was 2-3x more effective.

Trapping is just a big undertaking that requires a lot of effort and planning so it doesn't get the same participation.

Idaho is moving away from some traps that kill dogs in closer-in areas.