OT: Wolf Watch - Page 10

This one was clearly larger than a coyote, but keep in mind our coyotes are not that large out here.  I would guess 70 to 90 lbs. but that's simply a guess.  It was gray in color, and not monstrous.  As the crow flies, the sighting was only about 4&half miles from my home, but on the opposite side of the river.  Still, I'll be cautious when letting the puppy out for breaks tonight, since I live outside town adjacent to a creek and a half section of state land, and of all places, right next to a meat processing facility.  I've not actually seen or heard wolves since my move to Columbus MT, but there was an incident December 28th, where one dog was killed and two others injured by wolves about 20 miles southeast from me.

It would be interesting to compare the exact taxonomic nomenclature for each of these subspecies. 
But a very basic description, according to The Wolf Almanac: A Celebration of Wolves and Their World By Robert H. Busch 
irremotus - a medium sized, light colored wolf from the northern Rocky Mountains
occidentalis - a large wolf from western Canada, also called the Mackenzie Valley Wolf

Along the lines of what Moons was mentioning, there was a proposal by an individual taxonomist to change the classification of these subspecies groups, by lumping them into five groups, but irremotus and occidentalis would still have resulted in being as separate subspecies.

This is a great thread. It pains me to hear that the Canis lupus irremotus is extinct.
Is Canis lupus irremotus extinct even in captivity?

As far as behavior goes. All wolfs (and other predators) are hard wired in knowledge  how to kill. Wolf , cat, dog and so on is shaking the head same way as lizard . Prey kill instinct, chasing instinct and so on is always the same.  However they must learn from "monkey see monkey do experience" what to kill and how much. If the wolf introduced to YNP was not wild but captive wolf they probably knew that food is coming form the back of the truck. That may be the reason for wolf to kill extraordinary amount of prey without eating it.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com

Yellowstone Wolves: A Chronicle of the Animal, the People, and the Politics
Though I haven't read it, this book probably provides a more factual insight to what occured behind the scenes of wolf "re" introducution in YNP.  Environmentalists pushed for the decision that inevitably resulted in the extinction of the already endangered population of C.l irremotus, while government saw it as an opportunity to win public acceptance as a means to reduce elk over-grazing within the park.

The elk herds learned very well that the park was a safety zone from hunting pressures, and became quite habituated and prosperous within the park's environment, with little incentive to migrate.  Now, with decimation of the herds within the park,  the landscape is recovering and other species prospering (besides coyotes), but the wolves are multiplying, and to flourish without resorting to territorial disputes over dwindling resources, need to disperse well ouside the park's boundaries to sustain themselves on easier prey than bison.  There's one pack staying with an elk herd just outside the city of Butte, for example.  Elk have a more cohesive herding behavior than deer, so I believe they're preferred over deer for a steady source of meat.

The Canadian wolves brought to YNP were captured from the wild, but I recall there was a brief quarantine period before they were released.  The original wolf recovery plan drawn up in 1987 called for removal from the endangered and threatened species list, once a minimum of 10 breeding pairs was established in each of the three recovery areas (Greater Yellowstone Area, NW Montana, and Central Idaho), and maintained for three successive years.  We are well beyond those original recovery goals, and for many years already.

Quoting Montana's top wildlife official on March 7th...

"For the amount of conflict we have in all sectors today, we probably have too many wolves on the landscape," Maurier told the council. "We had tolerable conflict on the landscape; now it's intolerable. Now we have to go back to the point where it's tolerable at all levels but we still have a viable population."


The more important details of this annual report was nicely summarized by infoZine...

2009 Interagency Annual Wolf Report
Sunday, March 14, 2010 :: Staff infoZine
The 2009 NRM wolf population increased over 2008 levels and now includes at least 1,706 wolves in 242 packs and 115 breeding pairs.

Washington, D.C. - infoZine - A cooperative effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and USDA Wildlife Service, the 2009 Interagency Annual Wolf (Canis lupus) Report for the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Distinct Population Segment is now posted online.

The 2009 NRM wolf population increased over 2008 levels and now includes at least 1,706 wolves in 242 packs and 115 breeding pairs. Wolf packs and especially breeding pairs largely remain within the core recovery areas, but for the first time breeding pairs were confirmed in eastern Washington and Oregon. Agency control, hunting and the natural territorial behavior of wolves slowed population growth to less than 4 percent in 2009, the lowest growth rate since 1995. In 2009 Federal agencies spent $3,763,000 for wolf management. Private and state agencies paid $457,785 in compensation for wolf-damage to livestock in 2009. Confirmed cattle losses in 2009 (192) were lower than in 2008 (214), but confirmed sheep losses (721) and dog losses (24) were higher than in 2008 (355 and 14 respectively). Montana removed 145 wolves by agency control and 72 by hunting. Idaho removed 93 by agency control and 134 by hunting. In Wyoming, 32 wolves were removed by agency control. In Oregon, two wolves were removed by agency control. No wolves were controlled in Washington or Utah. Wolves in the NRM, except in Wyoming, were delisted on May 4, 2009. The decision to delist by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is being litigated in both Wyoming and Montana Federal District Courts.

This report represents information on the status, distribution and management of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, and is composed of five Sections: 1) Montana; 2) Wyoming; 3) Idaho; 4) U.S. FWS overview of dispersal, funding, litigation, and relevant publications; and 5) tables and figures of wolves and wolf depredations. The Idaho and Montana state sections of the annual wolf report are also available online at the websites for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/management/wolf/default.html and Idaho Department of Fish and Game http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves


Other news, information and recovery status reports can be found here:
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

Also in the news, a wolf kill of a human occured about a week ago, in Alaska.  Two wolves found in the area were shot (by helicopter) and sent to lab for study.  So far, they have tested negative for rabies, still waiting on results for distemper.  Locals have been upset at the increasing fearlesness of the wolves, having been purposely stalked by them.  I'm sure there had to be a good reason, right?  How about this: killing is their instinct, it's what they're born to do, folks!

Wolves kill miniature horses

Someone's lifework, a 14 year breeding project down the tubes in an eyeblink.

What are you trying to say?

You seem very determined.

Sure, the wolf recovery program has nicely lined the pockets of a few individuals in the pro-wolf organizations, the televised documentaries by National Geographic and so forth, but I would reckon it's devastated more lives than it has ever benefited.  Do you think the 60,000 to 70,000 wolves already in North America might be enough, without further welcoming them into our communities and endangering our people and pets?

The goals for a sustainable population in the northern Rockies have currently been exceeded six times over, and it's time to accept that management of this population is not an merely option, but an absolute necessity given the nature of these creatures.  Despite the 20% mortality rate due to territorial disputes, disease, government trapping of "bad wolfies", and liscenced hunting, the population still has grown from last year's numbers!  This leaves the same number of wolves to even further decimate it's already devastaded food sources.  To not act would be irresponsible, if not almost insane.

I've already said what I've meant to say in this thread, that enough is enough.  These are the other sides to the story that are carefully concealed, omitted or played down by the popular media, and I'm simply providing updates to wolf-related events as they occur.  That's why it's called "Wolf Watch", so you really don't need to ask me my agenda over and over.  Obviously, for someone with a passion in animal breeding, I can deeply sympathize for the loss of the miniature horse breeder, but you know what they say about 'having all your eggs in one basket.'

Sorry if I seemed confused,
At first I wasn't really paying all that much attention.

I agree with your position,
I would not take kindly to the release of a dangerous predator in my back yard either.
On private property I would protect what was mine regardless of regulations.

If I lived on the fringes of a wilderness area however I would have to know such things do exist and learn ways to protect them both.

Many years ago the government tried to release black bears here in the national Forest, because there is not enough habitat and people being people, they did not survive.    There must be a buffer zone between man and wilderness, and lines have to be drawn.

Wilderness belongs to us all and everything in it, I want to know its there and being kept wild.
But what's private is private and I'd want the right to protect what was mine also.

I've lost plenty to the local wildlife so I understand the loss, but I also understood the risks of living here and could have taken precautions.

There are no easy answers, and sadly these things are decided by people who only turn something simple into something complicated without a real working knowledge of the situation.
Lawyers and Politicians.

There must be a balance somewhere between public and private.

I have no use for the animal (wolves) !  I have to constantly watch my dog when out snow shoeing and when I have him out and about from the kennel or my home. I am here in the west U.P. of Michigan where they are estimated that nearly 600 now roam through the whole entire Upper Penninsula of Michigan.  Just this past month I had 2 stalking my home as I seen them with binocuars from 400 yds. And within a 3 hour period seen them 3 differant times. Coyotes are one thing but wolves are bold ..... some reports up here over the past couple years have shown that wolves have taken pet dogs off of the back porch from houses and also coyotes are guilty of this also. Out snowmobiling this winter have seen 4 wolves around and about and I do not believe they were 1 in the same. I can do with out them but must deal with them ........ if you have wolves in your area be careful of your dog(s).   Regards ........ Greg