spectr17

Administrator
Admin
Joined
Mar 11, 2001
Messages
70,011
Reaction score
1,007
WOLF INTRODUCTION DISASTER -- matthews column-ONS -- 01apr10

Firestorm over wolf introductions erupting throughout Western states

By JIM MATTHEWS, Outdoor News Service

Wolves were first released into Yellowstone Park and central Idaho in 1995. Most people believe it was a “reintroduction” program aimed at restoring native animals back into the region. While it could and should have been just that, it is now becoming apparent the federal government has unleashed an environmental and human health disaster on the Western states.

First, the wolves that were released were the wrong subspecies. The animals were Canadian pack wolves from the Arctic, and while there was a viable population of Rocky Mountain wolves (of the correct subspecies) in several small packs in Idaho and Montana that could have been used for the reintroduction, the federal government choose to use these non-native animals for the rushed effort.

Second, the released wolves were all infected with a parasitic disease (hydatid) that had effectively been eradicated from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Today, the parasitic tapeworms are infecting a growing percentage of the ungulate and canine population in all three states, and the Centers for Disease Control is gearing up for treatment of human infections for which there is no know cure.

Third, the estimates on the wolves’ population increases and impacts on all wildlife in the region have been grossly misrepresented by federal scientists. As the wolf population spirals beyond what the government set as “recovery” limits, the impacts grow worse by the day. Some are calling it an ecological disaster on par with the slaughter of the prairie bison. And there’s nothing “natural” about this slaughter.

The controversy over the wolf releases is causing a firestorm of biological, political, and health concerns in the region. The releases were the result of feel-good environmentalism run amuck, and top scientists throughout the wildlife community and doctors experienced with the wolf-borne diseases are finally getting their voices heard about the problems with the so-called wolf reintroduction effort in the West.

The use of the wrong wolf subspecies has simply assured the extinction of the pure-strain Rocky Mountain wolf through cross-breeding, but genetic testing has proven this is the federal government’s apparent mode of operation with regard to wolves. The Eastern wolves being released, bred, and scattered throughout the Appalachians are coyote-dog-wolf hybrids. Even the wolves in the upper Midwest have an alarming percentage of dog and coyote genes. Apparently it’s more important to have wolves in a region than to have native wolves.

While the disease issue is going to become a major topic of conversation that will wedge it’s way onto newspaper front pages and national television news programs (and more coverage here another day), hunters and other wildlife enthusiasts are watching with horror as the West’s big game herds are being devastated by the Canadian wolves.

The Idaho Game and Fish Department has just conducted its annual survey of its once-prolific Lolo elk herds, which numbered from 13,000 to 15,500 animals in the years before Canadian wolves were released in Central Idaho. Today, with an Idaho wolf population approaching 1,100 animals (even after this fall-winter legal wolf hunting season that saw nearly 200 animals killed), the Lolo elk herd is down 85 percent to just over 2,000 animals.

The Yellowstone elk herd, which numbered around 20,000 animals before Canadian wolves, is down to around 4,000 animals, another 80-plus percent decline. Surveys of the Wyoming moose herd north of Jackson tallied over 1,200 animals before wolves. The Game and Fish Department’s February survey this year could only find 117 wolves -- more than a 90 percent decline.

The wolf population in the three-state region is estimated to be over 2,000, even though the three states were supposed to be allowed to keep the populations in check with hunting, trapping, and other removal programs when the numbers exceeded 300 with a specified number of packs. Lawsuits by radical environmentalists who don’t care about the impacts on local communities and ranches by the exploding wolf population, are now pressing for a “minimum” number of 6,000 wolves. So they don’t become “endangered” again.

The real issue with wolves is whether or not we can keep them in check now that they are back. It took over 50 years of intense effort to eradicate wolves from the Southwest and southern Rockies. And that was the era of leg-hold traps, snares, bounties, poison sets, and fleets of federal, state, and private wolf hunters working seven days a week to kill the animals. Fifty years! Today’s la-la land environmentalists are concerned that 2,000 isn’t enough or that sport-hunting programs are going to impact wolves?

History says they’re wrong. Even if we killed half of the wolves in the population each year, state wildlife biologists are saying there will be full-fledged packs of wolves in Utah and Colorado within three years. Both states have already reported wandering individuals and pairs. Washington and Oregon wildlife officials are expecting packs to become established in the Blue Mountains within a year or two and then expand rapidly beyond that.

The environmental document that was prepared for the wolf releases ignored vast volumes of scientific literature on wolves’ impacts on game herds, diseases, and productivity. The federal “scientists” assured the public that wolf numbers would peak at no more than 100 wolves in the 20-year period after releases, and that impacts on big game herds would be relatively small. Fifteen years into the project, wolves number over 2,000 and big game herds in the primary ranges have been reduced by 80 percent to 90 percent.

Think this is exaggerated? Canadian wolves kill an average of 22 elk per wolf per year, according to scientific studies, and that is considered conservative by many wolf experts. You do the math even with that number. Today’s 2,000 wolves will kill 44,000 elk per year, and if wolf numbers reach the 6,000 level (and it could do that in just two years at the current rate of growth), that would mean 132,000 elk per year.

To small towns around Yellowstone Park, wildlife along roadsides in the park has been the No. 1 attraction to visitors. Communities all over the region rely on the income generated when hunters flood into the region each fall. Cattle and sheep ranchers continue to hang on a thread in this region. Wolves are putting an end to all those activities in a hurry.

The idea of wolves cropping off just the sick and the weak is nonsense. Canadian wolves are an invasive, non-native species that are decimating Rocky Mountain wildlife and Western ranching and hunting traditions. Maybe that was really the plan all along.
 

DLS

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
193
Reaction score
49
The time has already passed for a major 'push-back' from conservationist, both in the legislatures, court rooms and in the field. It is well past the time that conservationists and sportsmen's groups should allow the radical environmentalists to dictate the agenda. We all need to band together to stop this expansion and reverse the trend legally and lawfully. It's going to take a lot of work, but needs to be done, and done now.
 

SoJo

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
714
Reaction score
16
I saw this year that they are allowing Wolf tags for nonresidents in Idaho...Unless I missed it last year I didn't think they allowed for nonresidents to purchase wolf tags.
 

Sigma

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
928
Reaction score
9
Wolves: "Smoke a Pack a Day"

Interesting perspective. What a firestorm indeed. Field and Stream last month featured an article about the guy up in Idaho who shot the first wolf. What an eye-opener that was. An then there's National Geographic's "Wolf Wars" for comparison.

They're claiming that everything is coming back in Yellowstone - Aspens, etc., due to the fact that elk are getting pushed around......hard to believe. Check out this illustration and the article: Wolf Wars - Illustration - National Geographic Magazine

I found the interactive maps showing wolf packs in and around Yellowstone to be interesting: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/wolf-wars/wolf-interactive

Have all other factors been considered? I doubt it. Both articles seem to bring out that effective management of the wolf does not constitute the mere allowance of elk hunters to take them incidentally while hunting.

I talked to one of my friends up in Idaho who worked with an outfitter for seven seasons. He stated that another negative effect on elk hunting is that many of the elk are retreating to private land as a result of the pressure. In some cases the elk are retreating to large areas of private lands where ranch personnel patrol and kill the wolves whenever they can and subsequently get paid around $600.00 if they can prove a kill was due to wolf predation. I would say if you were an elk, you would probably stay there, which is exactly what they're doing. Elk hunters and outfitters up there are fired up and mad. I can't say I blame them.
 
Last edited:

24mileboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
60
Reaction score
2
Idaho

Last year in Idaho a nonresident could hunt wolves, but the cost was high. They are talking about lowering the price, allowing electronic calls, and extending the season. About time.:thumbs up2:
 

calisdad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
276
Reaction score
14
Sigma, thanks for posting the Nat Geo article links. I had started reading it in the docs office but didn't finish. California Fish and Game also published a similar article stating that the trout were more abundant and larger due to the fact that the elk were chased out of the riparian habitat and it was recovering and shading the streams. It seems wolves would be one of the most effective tools in controlling CWD.

Matthews article was so skewed it was unbelievable. If someone were to put all the facts in one place where people could make an informed decision I think it would be well received. Nat Geo comes close.

Sure seems like a lot of fuss over less than 2000 animals. Elk can't be hunted in Yellowstone anyway can they?

Its a question of balance.
 

baco

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
828
Reaction score
7
Bottom line is if they would have kept at the original numbers and kept the population at those numbers we woudnt have this problem.
 

weekender21

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
49
Sigma, thanks for posting the Nat Geo article links. I had started reading it in the docs office but didn't finish. California Fish and Game also published a similar article stating that the trout were more abundant and larger due to the fact that the elk were chased out of the riparian habitat and it was recovering and shading the streams. It seems wolves would be one of the most effective tools in controlling CWD.

Matthews article was so skewed it was unbelievable. If someone were to put all the facts in one place where people could make an informed decision I think it would be well received. Nat Geo comes close.

Sure seems like a lot of fuss over less than 2000 animals. Elk can't be hunted in Yellowstone anyway can they?

Its a question of balance.

No, elk can't be hunted in Yellowstone but the Yellowstone herd is migratory and gets hunted as they leave the park and head towards their winter ground.

I agree, it is a matter of balance and currently there are way too many wolves. It took the feds several years after the wolves reached their intended numbers to finally approve hunting programs for each individual state.
 

fishhead

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
177
Reaction score
1
I forwarded a copy of Jim's article to the members of my rod and gun club, here's one reply:

Sad, but true. Our region has been hammered as a result of these parasites. There was an anti-wolf rally on the square several weeks ago held by outfitters/guides/ranchers and a lot of these issues were addressed. I saw a lot of guides from areas I used to work in on the border of Yellowstone and they are at a loss. One guide who has guided in that area since the 70's rode the first two weeks of elk season without seeing an elk at all. The camp I used to work out of was about 20 miles in out of the North fork of the Buffalo river. We were on the border of Yellowstone and hunted a lot of those elk migrating out of there prior to winter. The first year I worked for that guy we had 52 hunters. Last year I heard he and two other outfitters in that region drew an average of 17 hunters and killed an average of 2 elk the entire season. The last camp I worked out of and will guide opening week of this season is in the Wind River range and it has always had a strong resident elk population. However, I haven't hunted that area in several years so our results may be different. The wolves they introduced are bigger and far more predatory than what was here. Couple that with their propensity to kill elk to teach their young how to hunt and they have had a devastating effect. In the Gros Ventre range, where we have had our seasons reduced by several weeks, there have been documented packs photographed in numbers between 20-50 wolves. The elk feed grounds around Jackson are a virtual Shakey's buffet for these wolves. What the author didn't touch on was the impact on the moose population. Calves are generally 1-2 animals each season, but much like the elk, their calf survival ratio is dwindling. The moose population in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem fell from 30,000 animals down to 17,000 in just a span of about 5 years. This was about 5 years ago when the Moose Foundation presented their findings, but the Game and Fish biologists were trying to blame it on a nutrition deficincy. I had a moose tag in 2008 and ended up killing one the last day of the season, but hunted probably 25 days trying to find a respectable bull. Everywhere I went there was evidence of wolves. It's a sad commentary on the federal government over-stepping its bounds. If they high-fenced yellowstone and kept them there, then they wouldn't impact the state's resources. By law, the elk population belongs to the state and it is being hammered by a federally introduced virus. Kind of seems like the welfare system with regard to state's rights, doesn't it? My feeling is you can't manage one species and not the other. Wolves are capable of producing more offspring annually than ungulates that produce once a year so inevitably their numbers will eclipse that of their prey. With no food for them, they will resort to domestic livestock and kill off other packs they are in competition with. That is the argument from the left. The wolves will keep themselves and the elk in balance. Bullshit. They are like a person with an eating disorder who can't say no to that extra twinkie. The pattern we see is an under-estimation of population numbers of wolves and an over-estimate of the elk population by the feds. Wow, that was quite the bout with diarrhea of the mouth. You touched on a sensitive topic, but I hope this answers your question.
 
Top Bottom