First, Naki, thanks for asking questions. I personally would never presume to make judgements about the management of animals in other countries without doing so, and I find it quite amazing that many people seem quite content to make judgements about what is going on here without doing so. It is one of the problems relating to wolves, that is, as put to me by the, IMO, PRO-wolf Large Predator Manager for the State of Idaho who told me point blank that they engender almost a religious following.

Ever heard the statement: "He's a nice fellow until you get to know him"? IMO, that relates to the wolf.

I am not a scientist and I am not a wolf specialist. But I have read a lot on the subject and I have corresponded fairly frequently with our State and other State game department biologists on this subject. I'll tell you what I know and hopefully there are no factual errors here, as, quite truthfully, where facts are needed, FACTS are what I'd like to see. I do believe that what I state as fact is generally accepted to be so. My opinions I'll try to identify.

I apologise for the lengthy response. Maybe most won't read it but if some do, good. I think your questions are pretty factually oriented and don't engender a lot of emotion, so here goes...

Quote:

---

I can see the high emotion here....so let me ask some questions so that I can understand the issue better.

1. Are the wolves in the US not the same species as those in Canada, Alaska, Scandinavia, Russia, Spain, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Middle East, India etc? (I mean - like the Grizzly is the same species as the Brown Bear found in all these countries or the Wapiti is the same species as the Red Deer or maral stag of these countries).

First, legally and otherwise in the State, Red Deer are not the same as Wapiti, being of a different subspecies. By law they are determined different animals here. I am not certain if Red Deer are legal to own in Idaho anymore.

The taxonomic classification of wolves is an issue originally deemed settled by the US F&W Service {the ones that introduced the wolves}. Their position was that Canadian wolves, though quite a bit bigger than our indigenous wolves, are the same species, with no subspecies variation. The way our State Large Predator Manager put it to me was: "Like a large Alberta whitetail is the same as a small Florida whitetail".

However, further studies are ongoing. I do not know what the end result of this is going to be, but the point seems to be this, in really simple and "unscientific" terms; before Canadian wolves were introduced in various ecosytems, "a wolf was a wolf", except for the red wolf variation. Now there is some backtracking on that. Remember, and I know you do because you have a science background IIRC, taxonomy is about descriptions that may involve a certain level of subjective decision making.

And also, it is accepted as fact that Canadian wolves are bigger than what was/is here. They are really huge animals.

{EDIT; REMOVED PICTURES OF WOLF TRACK IN MY SKI TRACKS. THEY MADE THE SCREEN SIZE TOO LARGE}

Remember too that the overabundance of Canadian wolf stock proves the safety of the wolf as a species. THAT is why our Endangered Species Act here in the USA needs to be rewritten IMO and in the opinion of many others.

2 Is there any particular difference in the behaviour of the US wolves? Why are they such terrible killers compared to wolves in other areas?

Wolf sizes vary of course, and with that the ability to kill larger game. I cannot say they are "terrible killers compared to..." because I do not know that they are NOT terrible killers elsewhere. Arguing from ignorance is not my intent. What I can say is that historically, wolves have been hated in every culture I am aware of for a variety of reasons: effect on livestock, human safety and as a spreader of disease. Wolves, in my opinion, SEEM so warm and cuddly to many modernists because modern people haven't had to live with them in close proximity or compete with them for food stocks and over time the wolf has become the poster child for "the good ole days". In my opinion, living in close proximity to wolves and engaging in livestock and outdoor activities is the best way to convert a generally pro-wolf fellow into a wolf-hater. This is being done all over right now and is the reason for my general optimism as stated in the above post.

3 Are the wolves really so terrible or is the US elk & deer population now artificially high & unsustainable in the long term?

Any game population left unchecked can become unsustainable, or prone to disease, etc. The FACT of our high numbers of Western whitetail deer, elk and exploding moose populations is testament to the fabulous work of the State Game Departments as funded by HUNTERS through Pittman Robertson Act dollars and hunting licenses and some changes in habitat and environmental awareness. I am not "anti-environment" as some might like to imply. To the contrary. Wolves represent a terrible threat to our environment. Credit where credit is due; people HAVE very positively managed game for generations now, and wolves are a direct threat to those successes.

Game numbers are most easily adjusted by controllable management tools {tag sales, hunting quotas, etc} NOT by unrestricted and uncontrollable wolf activity. Even counting wolves is an incredibly difficult endeavor in our mountainous and timbered country. Game department officials will only state that we have a "minimum" number of wolves. They will not say how many more their may be. Remember, too, and most Easterners IMO in the USA do not understand this because conditions and habitat are so different West to East; In vast areas of the American West, the over-riding control on game numbers is WINTER. Many "soft" winters may pass with game numbers skyrocketing, then a "hard" winter occurs and it may take years for game numbers to rebound. This occured in '96 and now, in '08. Down in the Lochsa and Lolo drainages, various habitat problems have caused great trouble for elk recovery from the '96 winter, compounded by a growing wolf population for example. None of this is argued by our State game department folks.

One other ominous cloud hanging over the growth of wolf populations is the effect on game and the consequent effect on hunting license sales. Several game department officers have expressed to me their {IMO proper} concern about this. A simple fact is that wolf lovers do not contribute financially to game management in our State, hunters do. The cost of wolf management will have to be borne by...who? Hunters themselves and ultimately when funds dwindle, State tax revenue. This whole scenario promises to be interesting politics.

In effect, wolf introduction suggests that our European and American culture appears so fat and wealthy that we think we can take on a new mouth at the table, a mouth that never gives but rather always takes. The actual long term financial impact of wolf recovery was never made public to the public, and we are finding it out along the trail.


4 Are the wolves having such an impact because of the lack of buffalo in the ecosystem? In other countries they feed on migrating ungulates which move around a lot more.

To answer your question directly, the primary historical and present wolf prey species in Idaho, as told me by a number of biologists, is and was the wapiti, with adjustments to that diet based on availability and migration of wolves and the game they hunt. No, American bison were not the primary prey species.

However, the "ecosystem" you refer to {and here is the fact not liked by many in the pro-wolf camp} is the backyard of millions of people. It is not a virgin ecosystem unimpacted by human life and activity. That is important to know, because introduced wolves live at the good grace of people and need continued political support. When wolf numbers were high, people who had to live with them killed them because of the trouble the wolves caused. Modern Americans in the Lower 48 do not yet know what living next door to wolves is like. Adding wolves to this reality is NOT like adding wolves to the American West as it was in, say 1830 {as if the wolves were gone then}. Ultimately, every wolf kill impacts humans, and those who live where they have been dumped and where their numbers are now growing were never asked if they wanted wolves.

Regarding hunting... Hunting as a culture in Idaho has evolved around masterful management that led to the regrowth of big game populations thru the 1900's. At some point of wolf-caused ungulate decline, that culture will also decline, and the longterm effect on game numbers may be devastating. Meaning, in quite blunt terms, if all hunting becomes draw only, and the chance of killing an elk or deer is very small, the pursuit of those animals on a legal and sustainable basis may indeed disappear, with many people no longer caring what happens to the game they can no longer regularly hunt. Am I suggesting the widescale growth of poaching? I have been told directly by the State Large Predator Manager that wolves will directly effect hunting opportunity for people, to what degree it is unknown, but wolves will cause a restriction on hunting ungulates, not benefit it. Whether the local populations will accept that or not is yet to be seen. I can tell you this; the local folk of Africa, India, Idaho and elsewhere are probably quite similar. If it pays, it stays. Sorry, wolves don't pay. The understanding of that fact has prompted successful big game management everywhere. We forget it at our peril, and the peril of our big game. We have had a great thing going here in our hunting for several generations, and wolves threaten that culture. IF the State can shoulder wolf management and the State is allowed to set limits on wolf numbers, all may be fine. The problem is that the wolf-loving activists are very well-funded and seek to stop all wolf hunting by litigation and prevention of the establishment of hunting seasons. A few judges in various courts seem to favor the anti-hunters and wolf-lovers, and they promise to be trouble. Right now, the States have technical legal authority to manage wolves and can initiate hunting seasons. Whether that holds true till the start date of the hunting seasons has yet to be seen. Stay tuned.

May I suggest that we refrain from language that could be offensive. After all we do see extremes of human behaviour that is a lot worse than wolves & this has such a terrible impact on fellow humans.

Lets have some healthy discussions and enjoy the forum. JMTBW

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

....
In recent decades, the Jaguars that have been sighted in the US are as likely to be escapees or released from private owners as they are to be truly wild. We, here in the US, have a problem with stupid people releasing exotic pets .......... after all, the country with the greatest tiger population on earth is the good old USA.

---

I agree 100%. A full grown adult Jaguar or any other big cat will cross into new territory only if it needs new territory for food or for breeding. The SW may have some Coues deer, Javalina, Mulies & Elk that the cats can feed on. But are jaguars so abundant below the border that they need to colonise new territory a la whitetails in the north? If the territory had females in heat, people / researchers would hear them roaring when in heat. The odd animal sighted could be an escapee / released one or one that was chased north by dogs. I will believe that the Jaguar is a naturally occurring wild animal in the US when there is research proving breeding pairs are active for a full season & cubs are around for a while.

I hope no idiot releases a pair. The cubs would starve in all probability as the adults would not have learned to hunt large pray and they will need such pray to raise cubs.

---

Looks like this very thing just happened - single leopard though:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20080622/Dead.Leopard/

--------------------
He who lives in the past is doomed to enjoy it.

Post Extras: