wolves-in-minnesota-live-very-different-lives-compared-to-wolves-in-wyoming/

[tjones]

To bad they didn’t reintroduce these wolves in Yellowstone instead of their monster Canadian cousins. Things would probably be a whole lot better.

Have some facts to back that up?

And something other than Lobo Watch.

 

[mtmiller]

And something other than Lobo Watch.

Come on man, I was baiting.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Interesting conversation.

Ep. 166: Hunting with Teeth | MeatEater Podcasts

Steven Rinella talks with Diane Boyd and Janis Putelis.Subjects discussed: Cyclone fences; swapping a motorcycle for a first wolf experience; Wolf rendezvous sites and snagging a wolf in a blind set; wolves killing wolves; wolves and border security; the myth of the super-wolf; did the wolf...

www.themeateater.com

EIS might me of interest to some as well.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/wildlife-reports/wolf/eis_1994.pdf

Interesting. That proposal from 1994 o mcluded some statements (below) about what or what would not happen. I have no idea whether those turned out to be correct, but one thing they perhaps didn’t account for was the wolf numbers would keep increasing, then they’d spill over into other states.

++A recovered wolf population in the central Idaho area would kill about ten cattle (1-17), 57 sheep (32- 92), and up to 1,650 ungulates each year. A recovered wolf population will not affect hunter harvest of male elk but may reduce harvest of female elk 10%-15% and will not measurably impact hunter harvest of deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats. A recovery wolf population will not measurably impact ungulate populations in central Idaho. Wolf presence will not change uses of public or private land (except for use of M-44 devices where wolf population occur). Visitor use would likely increase (+8% of our of area residents and +2% for area residents). At recovery, losses are estimated to be $757,000-$1,135,000 in hunter benefits, $572,000-$857,000 in potential reduced hunter expenditures, and $2,923-$18,503 in potential livestock losses. Visitation in central Idaho is expected to increase and the existence value of wolves is estimated at $8,400,000 a year.+++

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Apparently in Washington state a small forest caribou herd that had been starting, got derailed by predators including wolves.

And in NE Oregon we were up to about 70 known moose in 2013, but now are down to around 30. During that same time and relatively speaking, estimated wolf numbers have increased dramatically. [End of 2017 we had est. 124 wolves. End of 2021, 175 https://dfw.state.or.us/wolves/population.asp ]

The state of moose

I was on Salmo Mountain in Washington state, way up next to the border with British Columbia when I found an odd track, about 4 inches long — not an

www.lagrandeobserver.com

“The average person doesn’t have a clue as to how fast these wolves reproduce,” [former ODFW biologist] Coggins said. “As the wolf numbers have increased the moose have decreased and that’s a fact. I know of a number of moose that have been killed by wolves recently. There are virtually wolf packs in every unit. At least one pack in each unit and most have a couple packs,” Coggins said.

 

[bwanakubwa]

In the MN moose study the researchers labeled moose that had been bitten by wolves and died from infection as natural causes, not predation. It's not popular to link any negative effects from predators in wildlife research these days.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

I don't care what they eat, what I thought was interesting was they say only 2700 and I'm telling ya...it's higher than that I bet...

 

[fowladdict]

@cheeser Do you ever fart and stay in the room? Or do you always fart and then leave the room?

 

[Gellar]

I attended the MN DNR roundtable a few years back where they stated that wolves kill over 50% of the moose calves before September. So that is a direct contradiction to the articles statement that wolves in MN don't eat moose. I am not anti-wolf, but I do get tired of contradictory information. As an iconic species in MN, I wish we were doing more to save the moose.

50% of the moose calves in Minnesota would be like 25. Unfortunately the moose population in Minnesota has fallen, but it seems to be holding steady despite the wolf population growing.

 

[BrentD]

50% of the moose calves in Minnesota would be like 25. Unfortunately the moose population in Minnesota has fallen, but it seems to be holding steady despite the wolf population growing.

And deer as well. Anyone here recall the state of the deer population in NE Minnesota in the 70s?

 

[Gellar]

And deer as well. Anyone here recall the state of the deer population in NE Minnesota in the 70s?

I believe There is a larger correlation to the rise of deer numbers and the fall of moose numbers than the rise of wolf numbers and the fall of moose numbers

 

[Gellar]

And to clearly state my position I think wolves belong on the landscape but need to be managed. And there in lies the predicament what is the proper balance? We need to ensure healthy populations for all users. But throughout history of European settlement we have not been able to agree on that balance

 

[elkduds]

Maybe Colorado should transplant some suckers and blueberries too!

What our Gov and his love really want is reintroduction of megamosquitos.

 

[Bowmannate2000]

What our Gov and his love really want is reintroduction of megamosquitos.

We in Minnesota can send you many mosquito varieties along with the wolves .

 

[cheeser]

here in central upper peninsula of Michigan wolves eat deer. these are all summer of 2022 in a 200 acres parcel. note time stamps. these are just the wolf kills caught on my cameras, imagine how many more weren't on camera. also notice these are in broad daylight and they are all within of forty of my cabin. they have little fear of man.

 

[SAJ-99]

Depends on one’s definition of “significant” difference in size (or more accurately, average size).

This article or research paper from 2012 which another member linked to in a different thread, does note differences in sizes of wolves based on region and diet, and noted there was still controversy over this kind of thing.

An Account of the Taxonomy of North American Wolves From Morphological and Genetic Analyses

Abstract. The available scientific literature was reviewed to assess the taxonomic standing of North American wolves, including subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The recent scientific proposal that the eastern wolf, C. l. lycaon, is not a subspecies of gray wolf, but a full species...

meridian.allenpress.com

Excerpts:

Development of even more powerful genetic markers has led to new, highly controversial interpretations, * * * * Other controversies include whether the current Great Lakes wolf population is evolutionarily representative of the historical population (Leonard and Wayne 2008) * * * and the taxonomic identity of wolves of Pacific coastal regions (Muñoz-Fuentes et al. 2009). The lack of consensus among researchers on so many important issues related to the taxonomy of North American wolves prompted the present review.

Differences in habitat have been correlated with variations in behavior, including migration and prey selection. For example, Kolenosky and Stanfield (1975) have described variation in Ontario wolves, where larger wolves of boreal forests specialize on moose Alces americanus and caribou Rangifer tarandus as prey, while smaller wolves in deciduous forest habitats specialize on white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus.

Trends of increasing size among wolves to the north and west of southern Ontario and Quebec have been noted in morphometric studies covering the Great Lakes region. The association of smaller wolves with white-tailed deer in deciduous forests and larger wolves with larger prey, such as moose and caribou, in boreal forests has been frequently cited (Kolenosky and Standfield 1975; Skeel and Carbyn 1977; Schmitz and Kolenosky 1985). When wolf skulls were divided by source habitat into deciduous forest (eastern wolf) and boreal forest (C. lupus), discriminant function analysis distinguished 75% of boreal wolves from eastern wolves, and boreal wolves were >25% larger in body mass (Kolenosky and Standfield 1975).

….

This review was initiated because of the wide range of views expressed by different researchers and research groups on some major features of relationships and classification of North American wolves.

Can't we fix most of the debate with genetic sequencing now?

 

[Gellar]

What our Gov and his love really want is reintroduction of megamosquitos.

Minnesota could help you with that too.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Can't we fix most of the debate with genetic sequencing now?

As of 2012 it sounded like there was a long way to go re genetic testing different wolves in different regions of the US. That particular paper noted as much. With the increase in wolf numbers in the west since that time, perhaps there's been a lot more testing.

Though I'd note Colorado State University extension had this to say as of 05/2020:

The number and geographic boundaries of gray wolf subspecies in North America have not been fully resolved. For example, some scientists consider wolves in parts of the eastern Great Lakes into Canada as a distinct species – the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon).8-9 Others think these wolves are not a distinct species but rather hybrids between gray wolves and coyotes.10

....

Gray wolves use many different habitat types, from Arctic tundra to forests, grasslands, and deserts wherever there is enough prey and where they are tolerated by humans. In the western United States, the best habitat for wolves is on public lands where both these needs are met. In the Rocky Mountains, wolves feed on a variety of prey, primarily elk, but also deer and occasionally moose. In Yellowstone National Park, elk make up about 90% of their diet. Wolves also eat small mammals, insects, and berries.

....

About 6000 inhabit the lower 48 states. This includes about 4000 wolves in the western Great Lakes states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. About 2,000 wolves live in the northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Smaller numbers of wolves live in the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, and Northern California.20 A group of up to 6 wolves was confirmed in northwest Colorado in 2020, and an additional lone wolf was confirmed in north-central Colorado near Walden in summer 2019.21-22

Wolf Taxonomy and Biology – 8.002

Print this information sheet by the Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence (5/20) Key Points… Taxonomy, the naming and grouping of living organisms, is complicated for wolves. Five subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus) are currently recognized in North America, including the Mexican wolf of the...

extension.colostate.edu

 

[Gus Chiggins]

From the 2012 paper https://meridian.allenpress.com/naf.../An-Account-of-the-Taxonomy-of-North-American

++++To summarize, a comprehensive understanding of North American wolf evolution and taxonomy will require: 1) geographically comprehensive morphometric analyses of wolf morphology using more objective methods than discriminant function analysis; 2) larger samples for both genetic and morphological studies from currently undersampled areas; 3) morphometric and genetic analysis of historical collections now in museum collections; 4) sampling schemes and analyses that take into account the warnings and recommendations of Schwartz and McKelvey (2009) and Schwartz and Vucetich (2009); 5) transparent reporting in scientific publications of detailed locality information; 6) reporting of morphological and genetic information obtained from all available genetic marker types for individual animals; 7) and integration of all morphological and genetic information in analyzing and interpreting the results of studies.

There is scientific support for the taxa recognized here, but delineation of exact geographic boundaries presents challenges. Rather than sharp lines separating taxa, boundaries should generally be thought of as intergrade zones of variable width. These “fuzzy” boundaries are a consequence of lineages of wolves that evolved elsewhere coming into contact with each other. Historical or modern boundaries should also not be viewed as static or frozen in any particular time. Our understanding of the historical interactions between subspecies or genetically different populations (e.g., Leonard et al. 2005) is that they are dynamic processes and boundaries can shift over time. Even with the great dispersal capabilities of wolves and their interaction in these intergrade zones, genetic indications of the independent evolution of the wolves here recognized as species or subspecies are still discernible on a continental scale.+++

 

[FI460]

From the 2012 paper https://meridian.allenpress.com/naf.../An-Account-of-the-Taxonomy-of-North-American

++++To summarize, a comprehensive understanding of North American wolf evolution and taxonomy will require: 1) geographically comprehensive morphometric analyses of wolf morphology using more objective methods than discriminant function analysis; 2) larger samples for both genetic and morphological studies from currently undersampled areas; 3) morphometric and genetic analysis of historical collections now in museum collections; 4) sampling schemes and analyses that take into account the warnings and recommendations of Schwartz and McKelvey (2009) and Schwartz and Vucetich (2009); 5) transparent reporting in scientific publications of detailed locality information; 6) reporting of morphological and genetic information obtained from all available genetic marker types for individual animals; 7) and integration of all morphological and genetic information in analyzing and interpreting the results of studies.

There is scientific support for the taxa recognized here, but delineation of exact geographic boundaries presents challenges. Rather than sharp lines separating taxa, boundaries should generally be thought of as intergrade zones of variable width. These “fuzzy” boundaries are a consequence of lineages of wolves that evolved elsewhere coming into contact with each other. Historical or modern boundaries should also not be viewed as static or frozen in any particular time. Our understanding of the historical interactions between subspecies or genetically different populations (e.g., Leonard et al. 2005) is that they are dynamic processes and boundaries can shift over time. Even with the great dispersal capabilities of wolves and their interaction in these intergrade zones, genetic indications of the independent evolution of the wolves here recognized as species or subspecies are still discernible on a continental scale.+++

 

[elkduds]

Come on man, I was baiting.

Yes, you are a master @ that