Wolf pack in CO

[87TT]

Does anyone out there have evidence, as in documented facts, on what wolf species was actually introduced?

Straight from wikipedia
Yellowstone[edit]

See also: History of wolves in Yellowstone


Map showing wolf packs in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as of 2002.

Grey wolf packs were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho starting in 1995. The subspecies native to the Yellowstone area prior to extirpation was the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) however the species that was reintroduced was the Mackenzie Valley wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) though both subspecies were similar and their range overlapped across the region (needs citation). These wolves were considered as “experimental, non-essential” populations per article 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Such classification gave government officials greater leeway in managing wolves to protect livestock, which was considered one of a series of compromises wolf reintroduction proponents made with concerned local ranchers.

 

[Ross]

looks like our nice cuddly wolves help the moose populations as well imagine these opportunities have expanded also

 

[ewade07]

Straight from wikipedia
Yellowstone[edit]

See also: History of wolves in Yellowstone


Map showing wolf packs in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem as of 2002.

Grey wolf packs were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho starting in 1995. The subspecies native to the Yellowstone area prior to extirpation was the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) however the species that was reintroduced was the Mackenzie Valley wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) though both subspecies were similar and their range overlapped across the region (needs citation). These wolves were considered as “experimental, non-essential” populations per article 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Such classification gave government officials greater leeway in managing wolves to protect livestock, which was considered one of a series of compromises wolf reintroduction proponents made with concerned local ranchers.

I don't take Wikipedia as a credited source, sorry. I should have said researched, scholarly information.

 

[87TT]

And tell it to the woodland caribou in Idaho. Oh wait they're extinct now.

 

[87TT]

I don't take Wikipedia as a credited source, sorry. I should have said researched, scholarly information.

I'm sure you're right they must hate wolves too so they made it up.

 

[87TT]

How about this?

U.S.A. Wolf Fact Sheet

Wolves in the Rocky Mountains

Probably the most well-known wolf recovery effort was the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 and 1996. After an absence of more than 50 years, wolves returned when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brought wild-trapped Canadian gray wolves to the park and to the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area in Idaho. The goal was to speed up the recovery progress of wolves in the Rocky Mountain region, where wolves had been eliminated in the late 1920's.

Wolves were released as family groups in Yellowstone and individually in central Idaho. The program has been extremely successful, with wolves in both areas forming packs and reproducing. There are now an estimated 90 wolves in Yellowstone, and about 70 wolves in central Idaho. Coupled with natural recovery occurring in northwestern Montana (where there are approximately 75 wolves), the reintroduction program has boosted wolf recovery progress in the Rocky Mountain region.

 

[ewade07]

I'm sure you're right they must hate wolves too so they made it up.

All I am saying is Wikipedia is not a creditable source.

 

[87TT]

They were just using the government information

 

[street]

All I am saying is Wikipedia is not a creditable source.

Wikipedia is, in general, a very accurate source. It is essentially the collection of current human knowledge and is as credible as you can get when it comes to information. Of course it has its outliers with certain topics, but the site is far from conjecture.

 

[slick]

There are varying opinions on sub-speciation of wolves. Some believe the same, some believe different, even among academics. Based on other species sub-speciation, they are more alike than they are different.

Folks on here wouldn’t be happy even if they brought in timber wolves from Minnesota that claim they are more “alike” than wolves out of Canada. The arguments are the same “MN, MI, WI timber wolves have decimated white tailed deer”

What makes anyone think that if Great Lakes states wolves had been brought to Yellowstone that we would be in any different position than we are now?

Bring a whitetail deer from Minnesota and put it in Montana, it’s still going to breed with other white tails, and behave the same, but might have some phenotypic differences, but again, are going to be more similar than they are different.

If I am remembering right, the people who were in charge of the effort of the introduction of wolves back to Yellowstone brought packs in that were already successfully hunting bison in northern Canada.


As far as woodland caribou go, I don’t think wolves helped them, as any predation at that point was probably additive mortality, but I believe it was habitat that was a strong factor in determining their success or failure.

I am surprised that people aren’t in more of an uproar over that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[87TT]

Still waiting for a real reason or need to have wolves in the first place.
In Northern Canada there is way more room and habitat for wolves and prey to scatter and coexist. In the lower 48 we have developed to a point where there isn't any room for this. The people pushing wolves want to end all human involved hunting and harvesting of animals. There is no good reason for them to exist here anymore. If it was all about bringing back pre existing animals, we would have grizzlies in Southern Ca. Let's re introduce them in Yosemite.

 

[slick]

I disagree 87, I think there is room for wolves on the landscape in the lower 48. For instance I think the Frank Church, Beartooths, Madison-Hilgards, Bob, Winds, etc. (Im not familiar enough with Colorado’s large tracts of public to comment on that) but I believe those areas all big enough to support a population, and thus you’ll have connectivity between core areas, leading to wolves in other places. Again, I’m all for wolves that depredate livestock to be wiped out.

Just because something doesn’t provide a direct benefit to you doesn’t mean it shouldn’t/can’t exist.

Wildlife is managed for the people, not for hunters.

I think the bigger issue is where is the money coming from to support this (obviously us) so we “should” have a bigger say in how things work.

But, part of the reason elk, deer, sheep, etc. are what they are is because of the North American Model of Conservation. It can be a double edged sword.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

looks like our nice cuddly wolves help the moose populations as well imagine these opportunities have expanded alsoView attachment 145533

Lets address this first...since I served for a number years on the WGBLC moose committee and there is a metric chit ton of science on what is causing moose declines.

For starters, if you look back clear to the late 1970's moose have been on the decline in Wyoming since then. So the trajectory of moose in Wyoming, both in population and tag numbers, has steadily declined and if you projected the above graph to include the mid 1970's to 1995 it would show the same downward trend.

Meaning, that longggg before wolf reintroduction moose were having problems. Talk to any moose biologist in Wyoming and they'll tell you that moose habitat has been on the rocks for a long, long time.

Its also been documented, studied and proven that carotid artery worn (Elaeophora schneideri) prevalence has no question caused decline in moose. Those declines caused by E. schneideri have been documented across similar latitudes not only in North American, but Europe as well, both in herds where wolves are present and where they are not. Most of the research that was approved by the WGBLC dealt specifically with habitat and the increase in E. schneideri prevalence.

Study after study showed that habitat, or lack-there-of, was the largest factor in declining moose populations in Wyoming, even in the areas of the State that had no wolves.

Here is the main research that the WGBLC moose committee funded:

UW Researchers Link Habitat and Nutrition with Wyoming’s Moose Population | News | University of Wyoming

www.uwyo.edu

I don't believe anyone is proving jack chit with a graph like the one posted by Ross, except that moose, are, and have been declining since the 1970's in Wyoming.

Declining populations are never a result of one factor, the same as increasing a populations doesn't happen when you only change one factor. Everything is additive.

In that same line of thought, nobody, with more than 2 firing brain cells to rub together, would suggest that adding wolves to the mix helped the moose population in Wyoming. Predators kill moose...bears, wolves, lions, etc. and the impact is additive. Its completely disingenuous to post a graph like that and say, "see the wolves ate all the moose"...just NOT true, at all.

 

[Bigjay73]

I disagree 87, I think there is room for wolves on the landscape in the lower 48. For instance I think the Frank Church, Beartooths, Madison-Hilgards, Bob, Winds, etc. (Im not familiar enough with Colorado’s large tracts of public to comment on that) but I believe those areas all big enough to support a population, and thus you’ll have connectivity between core areas, leading to wolves in other places. Again, I’m all for wolves that depredate livestock to be wiped out.

Just because something doesn’t provide a direct benefit to you doesn’t mean it shouldn’t/can’t exist.

Wildlife is managed for the people, not for hunters.

I think the bigger issue is where is the money coming from to support this (obviously us) so we “should” have a bigger say in how things work.

But, part of the reason elk, deer, sheep, etc. are what they are is because of the North American Model of Conservation. It can be a double edged sword.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bigger issue is who will pay, biggest issue is/ will be allowing CPW to manage the packs

 

[BuzzH]

Still waiting for a real reason or need to have wolves in the first place.
In Northern Canada there is way more room and habitat for wolves and prey to scatter and coexist. In the lower 48 we have developed to a point where there isn't any room for this. The people pushing wolves want to end all human involved hunting and harvesting of animals. There is no good reason for them to exist here anymore. If it was all about bringing back pre existing animals, we would have grizzlies in Southern Ca. Let's re introduce them in Yosemite.

Lame...really lame.

If we're going to start down the road of having to come up with a "real reason to have or need wolves in the first place"...then why don't we ask the same question about other species?

What reason do have or need for elk? Mule deer? Mink? Songbirds?

I can assure you, a rancher that is getting his ass kicked by 500 or 600 elk in his hayfield every night would probably ask that very question, "Why do we need or want to even have elk on the landscape?".

That line of thinking is a total non-starter.

 

[ChrisS]

 

[ndbuck09]

How about this?

U.S.A. Wolf Fact Sheet

Wolves in the Rocky Mountains

Probably the most well-known wolf recovery effort was the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 and 1996. After an absence of more than 50 years, wolves returned when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brought wild-trapped Canadian gray wolves to the park and to the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area in Idaho. The goal was to speed up the recovery progress of wolves in the Rocky Mountain region, where wolves had been eliminated in the late 1920's.

Wolves were released as family groups in Yellowstone and individually in central Idaho. The program has been extremely successful, with wolves in both areas forming packs and reproducing. There are now an estimated 90 wolves in Yellowstone, and about 70 wolves in central Idaho. Coupled with natural recovery occurring in northwestern Montana (where there are approximately 75 wolves), the reintroduction program has boosted wolf recovery progress in the Rocky Mountain region.

Wayyyyy wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy wayyy more wolves than that in Central Idaho.

 

[BuzzH]

Wayyyyy wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy wayyy more wolves than that in Central Idaho.

The Fact Sheet was written prior to 2000...looks to be around 1998 and the populations referenced in the article were probably pretty accurate.

 

[BuzzH]

And tell it to the woodland caribou in Idaho. Oh wait they're extinct now.

Those caribou have been on the skids for a long time, logging, habitat loss, mountain lions, over-hunting, and sure wolves killed some too.

Care to talk about anything other than wolves impacting those caribou?

Remaining woodland caribou in U.S. (in Idaho) barely holding on

Tiny herd spends most of its time in British Columbia- The woodland caribou have been on the endangered species list for a long time, several million dollars have been spent on their conservation. …

www.thewildlifenews.com

 

[ewade07]

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opin...cle_0c77b040-fca5-5051-976a-bab4db274a82.html