Montana 1 upped by Idaho in Wolf take shenanigans.

[Sytes]

Are Co. wolves different than MT wolves? The ones I have seen in MT and Idaho run like hell when someone tries to pet them.

Are MT wolves different? A simple 1 minute internet review of reputable news sources.

Family’s story of survival after wolf attack during camping trip

The Rispoli family from New Jersey were sleeping in their tent in Canada’s Banff National Park when a wolf suddenly attacked. With the help of a nearby camper, the family was able to scare the animal away.

www.nbcnews.com

‘We heard somebody screaming’: Son of B.C. wolf attack victim shares rescue story | Globalnews.ca

Frank Russ said the wolf lunged at his father, Stanley Russ, without provocation outside his home in Port Edward, near Prince Rupert.

globalnews.ca

Wolves killed Alaska teacher in 2010, state says

Candice Berner was attacked and killed in March 2010 by two or more wolves while jogging near the village of Chignik Lake on the Alaska Peninsula, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

www.adn.com

IMO/E, I've experienced both settings. From face to face no aggression to surrounded by a pack and my partner and I withdraw from the area.

Every setting is unique and I believe they do keep their distance. However, as more and more people press into wolf country - situations will increase along with the more frequency of wolves and humans, the less fear wolves will possess.

And no... wolves don't run in fear from humans... wolves retreat to a location to monitor / evaluate the setting.

 

[Carnage2011]

Are MT wolves different? A simple 1 minute internet review of reputable news sources.

Family’s story of survival after wolf attack during camping trip

The Rispoli family from New Jersey were sleeping in their tent in Canada’s Banff National Park when a wolf suddenly attacked. With the help of a nearby camper, the family was able to scare the animal away.

www.nbcnews.com

‘We heard somebody screaming’: Son of B.C. wolf attack victim shares rescue story | Globalnews.ca

Frank Russ said the wolf lunged at his father, Stanley Russ, without provocation outside his home in Port Edward, near Prince Rupert.

globalnews.ca

Wolves killed Alaska teacher in 2010, state says

Candice Berner was attacked and killed in March 2010 by two or more wolves while jogging near the village of Chignik Lake on the Alaska Peninsula, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

www.adn.com

IMO/E, I've experienced both settings. From face to face no aggression to surrounded by a pack and my partner and I withdraw from the area.

Every setting is unique and I believe they do keep their distance. However, as more and more people press into wolf country - situations will increase along with the more frequency of wolves and humans, the less fear wolves will possess.

And no... wolves don't run in fear from humans... wolves retreat to a location to monitor / evaluate the setting.

Well it sounds like the wolves you are around would be easier to hunt. Just wait until they retreat and then shoot them as they are evaluating the setting.

Now, in SW MT the wolves run in fear….like as fast as those four legs will take them. If you’d like to drop me a pin of a good place where wolves will evaluate me as I dial my scope then I’m in!

 

[Carnage2011]

The boogey man of wolf attacks is always comical to me. The fact that people actually buy into it is even more hilarious.

 

[tjones]

Are MT wolves different? A simple 1 minute internet review of reputable news sources.

Family’s story of survival after wolf attack during camping trip

The Rispoli family from New Jersey were sleeping in their tent in Canada’s Banff National Park when a wolf suddenly attacked. With the help of a nearby camper, the family was able to scare the animal away.

www.nbcnews.com

‘We heard somebody screaming’: Son of B.C. wolf attack victim shares rescue story | Globalnews.ca

Frank Russ said the wolf lunged at his father, Stanley Russ, without provocation outside his home in Port Edward, near Prince Rupert.

globalnews.ca

Wolves killed Alaska teacher in 2010, state says

Candice Berner was attacked and killed in March 2010 by two or more wolves while jogging near the village of Chignik Lake on the Alaska Peninsula, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

www.adn.com

IMO/E, I've experienced both settings. From face to face no aggression to surrounded by a pack and my partner and I withdraw from the area.

Every setting is unique and I believe they do keep their distance. However, as more and more people press into wolf country - situations will increase along with the more frequency of wolves and humans, the less fear wolves will possess.

And no... wolves don't run in fear from humans... wolves retreat to a location to monitor / evaluate the setting.

Sounds like you should be filling out all your wolf tags then, no?

 

[Sytes]

Well it sounds like the wolves you are around would be easier to hunt. Just wait until they retreat and then shoot them as they are evaluating the setting.

Now, in SW MT the wolves run in fear….like as fast as those four legs will take them. If you’d like to drop me a pin of a good place where wolves will evaluate me as I dial my scope then I’m in!

Carnage, you're welcome any time to R1.
In the land of your glassing country, I can understand your opinion. In this country... its thick woods. They're off though not too far off.

Tony, are MT wolves different? Was your question you posed. Are they different than wolves who have attacked humans?

 

[Sytes]

While it's easy enough to take for granted the habituation of apex predators in the lower 48, we could look to Alaska for the long term activity involving wolves and humans. Even though more and more, it's becoming apparent with grizzlies in NW MT and other areas in the lower 48, for the same reasons mentioned below.

As I shared:

Every setting is unique and I believe they do keep their distance. However, as more and more people press into wolf country - situations will increase along with the more frequency of wolves and humans, the less fear wolves will possess.

From the Alaska Dept Fish & Game, published 13 years ago still available via ADFG.

"2. Aggression During Human–Wolf Encounters
A published review of wolf-human encounters in North America (McNay 2002a,b) revealed that the reported incidence of aggression by wolves is very low, but it has increased in recent years. For example, there was only 1 case of unprovoked wolf aggression documented between 1900 and 1969, but 18 cases of unprovoked aggression toward people between 1969 and 2000. Since 2000 there have been several more cases of injuries inflicted by wild wolves on people in both Alaska and Canada, and in 2005 a young man in northern Saskatchewan was killed by wolves. That increasing trend in wolf-caused injuries is occurring as wolves increase and reoccupy areas where they were formerly removed. Human populations are also increasing, and human activities such as camping, hiking, sightseeing and industrial developmental are increasing in areas occupied by wolves."

4. Aggressive Behaviors Associated with Habituation and Food Conditioning
"Where animals are protected or where humans by choice act passively toward the animals, the animals gradually lose their natural avoidance response to people. This is called habituation. It is a common behavioral trait among large herbivores (i.e. moose, caribou and sheep), bears, foxes, ground squirrels and many birds in National, State, and Provincial parks. It can also occur with wolves. Habituated wolves are “comfortable” around people and tolerate close approaches by people. The wolves may even initiate approaches toward people, seemingly out of curiosity or a desire to interact. Ironically, wolves that exhibit those behaviors are actually the most likely to act aggressively. Among documented cases of wolves that injured people, the wolves often had a history of repeatedly acting disinterested or even “friendly” toward people at close distances in the weeks or even months before they become aggressive.
Habituation involves a relaxation of inhibitions and when wolves feel comfortable around people they are more
likely to direct their natural social behaviors toward people. As pack animals wolves have a well developed social repertoire of behaviors that include play behaviors as well as aggressive behaviors designed to dominate or deflect the aggression of competitors within their pack. Habituated wolves may therefore initiate an aggressive behavior toward a person just as they might against a pack mate. People who have been injured by those types of wolf behavior are totally surprised by the unexpected aggression"

From the Division of Wildlife Conservation of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game

 

[Schaaf]

I wish I could find one that stood still long enough to take a picture let alone pet it..

The one in your avatar looks like he’s standing pretty still.

 

[shoots-straight]

If there were no emotion coming from either camp, wolves would just, be.

 

[Ben Lamb]

While it's easy enough to take for granted the habituation of apex predators in the lower 48, we could look to Alaska for the long term activity involving wolves and humans. Even though more and more, it's becoming apparent with grizzlies in NW MT and other areas in the lower 48, for the same reasons mentioned below.

As I shared:


From the Alaska Dept Fish & Game, published 13 years ago still available via ADFG.

"2. Aggression During Human–Wolf Encounters
A published review of wolf-human encounters in North America (McNay 2002a,b) revealed that the reported incidence of aggression by wolves is very low, but it has increased in recent years. For example, there was only 1 case of unprovoked wolf aggression documented between 1900 and 1969, but 18 cases of unprovoked aggression toward people between 1969 and 2000. Since 2000 there have been several more cases of injuries inflicted by wild wolves on people in both Alaska and Canada, and in 2005 a young man in northern Saskatchewan was killed by wolves. That increasing trend in wolf-caused injuries is occurring as wolves increase and reoccupy areas where they were formerly removed. Human populations are also increasing, and human activities such as camping, hiking, sightseeing and industrial developmental are increasing in areas occupied by wolves."

4. Aggressive Behaviors Associated with Habituation and Food Conditioning
"Where animals are protected or where humans by choice act passively toward the animals, the animals gradually lose their natural avoidance response to people. This is called habituation. It is a common behavioral trait among large herbivores (i.e. moose, caribou and sheep), bears, foxes, ground squirrels and many birds in National, State, and Provincial parks. It can also occur with wolves. Habituated wolves are “comfortable” around people and tolerate close approaches by people. The wolves may even initiate approaches toward people, seemingly out of curiosity or a desire to interact. Ironically, wolves that exhibit those behaviors are actually the most likely to act aggressively. Among documented cases of wolves that injured people, the wolves often had a history of repeatedly acting disinterested or even “friendly” toward people at close distances in the weeks or even months before they become aggressive.
Habituation involves a relaxation of inhibitions and when wolves feel comfortable around people they are more
likely to direct their natural social behaviors toward people. As pack animals wolves have a well developed social repertoire of behaviors that include play behaviors as well as aggressive behaviors designed to dominate or deflect the aggression of competitors within their pack. Habituated wolves may therefore initiate an aggressive behavior toward a person just as they might against a pack mate. People who have been injured by those types of wolf behavior are totally surprised by the unexpected aggression"

From the Division of Wildlife Conservation of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game

You are far more likely to die from being struck by lightning than from being et by a woof.

Lightning Victims

www.weather.gov

 

[Sytes]

You are far more likely to die from being struck by lightning than from being et by a woof.

Lightning Victims

www.weather.gov

I was hoping to win the lottery before either of those…

 

[one ate E grain]

Whether or not wolves are delisted, and the types of methods of take for population control are both immaterial in the greater scheme of things. Wolves/griz/cats all cuddly furry things with close together eyes, hunters and divisions of wildlife no longer determine how hunting is conducted, Wild Earth Guardians, and those hundreds of other similar orgs do.

On the supposed right side of things there are very few people who would change a vote based on a stance on wolves, they have that vote already. The big money is much more interested in other issues.

The left is much more powerful on these types of things and politicians can garner substantial funding and maybe even motivate a percent or two to vote.

Wolves and griz were never biologically endangered nor is our ESA based on biological endangerment, if so we'd follow the dictates of the IUCN as do many other countries. (gray wolves are listed at the same level as gray squirrels) I mean look at horses, hunters can't even manage an invasive feral!

Large predators will always expand populations to carrying capacity with very little to no management by hunters, indeed as stated up above without poison and culls approaching 50% of population there's not much that can be done about White Fang, and that will never happen.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I’d rather face wolves unarmed than CO muzzleloader hunters while archery hunting…

 

[Trap]

Carnage, you're welcome any time to R1.
In the land of your glassing country, I can understand your opinion. In this country... its thick woods. They're off though not too far off.

Tony, are MT wolves different? Was your question you posed. Are they different than wolves who have attacked humans?

I wish I could get one to stand still for a shot also. I agree with your statement that they run a short ways then evaluate in brushy country because I have had it happen and a lot of times I can’t see ten yards from where I am standing. Last week we had a big bull raking his horns and bugling and we couldn’t see any part of him at 40 yards. In open country I imagine wolves run like hell for miles. I don’t know haven’t had the pleasure of catching a wolf in open country yet.

 

[Trap]

View attachment 194960

Sorry @Trap. I had too.

The wolf issue has been political since the early 90's. But it's not necessarily partisan. Governor Freudenthal (D) in Wyoming was about as anti-wolf as you can be, because the politics of Wyoming mandated that he take a hardline stance against the Feds on everything but the cash coming in to prop up the state. Governor Schweitzer (D) was pounding the feds on wolf delisting his entire tenure until we finally got it done in 2011. He was persistent in pushing forward with a 10J rule for the bitterroot elk herd once we presented the information that @tjones, @shoots-straight and many others in the Root had relative to low calf recruitment and low cow survival. Schweitzer also was helpful in ensuring the Bitterroot Valley elk study happened that showed what's eating what (lions were the predominate mitigating factor).

Republicans like Kelly Flynn & Chas Vincent in Montana along with a host of others, weren't biting on the forbidden fruit of anti-wolf horsecrap either. Kelly, as part of the wolf management plan committee, knew that MT made a commitment relative to the three legs of the delisting stool, and that going too far in one direction could lead to a potential relisting, and certainly a review. Chas had some bad ideas to begin with but we were able to find some common ground and loosen hunting regulations and laws post delisting in a thoughtful and meaningful manner. Bullock's first law that he signed was the bill to create 5 OTC wolf licenses along with loosened restrictions on wolf hunting (I can look up the bill if anyone wants).

2002 - Wyoming's Game & Fish commission ignored the agency's proposed course of action instead listening to lobbyists from the MT Stockgrowers Association & Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife (and their lawyer, Harriet Hageman who has made serious money extending the drama around wolves) adopted a regulatory mechanism that they all knew to be unlikely to pass muster with the USFWS and the courts because virtue signaling was far more important than actually getting managed. I had the WSGA Executive Vice President tell me, and anyone who would listen, that they didn't care if wolves were delisted or not. They had a responsive gov't agency (USFWS) to deal with impacts and they were getting depredating wolves killed, so who cares about elk and deer?

During all of that, from 2002 until 2021, the far right side of the equation wanted to keep the conflict alive because they see votes in it at the local level. Far left groups are in the same boat, because the wolf is a money-maker for them. But neither side wins without the other there to help keep the hate & conflict alive. And now, thanks to Montana's legislature and Governor, relisting is a real possibility.

And that's because the side of the equation that wants fewer wolves is led by people who don't understand the ESA or how it works. People have been sold the idea that so long as you have 150/15 you'll be fine. You won't. Population is only 1 of 3 delisting requirements necessary to keep them delisted. The others are genetic diversity and an adequate regulatory mechanism as defined by the ESA and the agreements entered into by the states relative to getting their state plans approved.

So the states have just gotten rid of the Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms that had court approval and that helped ID & MT break free of WY in 2011 for the first congressional delisting of any animal. That delisting was done simply because you can't delist a species in a portion of their distinct population segment, which is what the 2009 delisting order did. As Judge Molloy said (paraphrasing): you don't have a wildlife problem. You have a political problem.

So that's when Senator Tester and Congressman Mike Simpson got together and took the draft of the rider that had been written by wildlife advocates in MT and added the congressional review prohibition. WE solved the delisting issue caused by Wyoming's intransigence with a political solution. Because that was the only way to get them delisted.

Then, some years later, Wyoming gets their plan approved with a few changes by the Obama administration (dems) and they get management of wolves, and by most accounts, they're doing a decent job managing an animal that should be managed biologically, but is under a political management.

Montana's legislature is by far more of a concern than Idaho's. Especially since the MT commission took it upon themselves to go full tilt crazy on loosening hunt & trap regulations beyond what is in statute and allowing for snaring, etc. Any time you have a huge change in management of a formerly listed species, especially one with such strong constituencies and political swagger, you will get a review.

So yeah, as someone who spent 9 years working to get them delisted in WY & MT, and then spent 10 years cautioning against going too far in one direction or another, to see it all come crashing down in a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest gives me a sense of schadenfreude. Having talked with a number of colleagues across the spectrum of the issue who put their time, effort and passion into carving out a compromise middle ground, we're all pretty much just laughing at this point.

If the animal gets relisted, it's on the heads of the politicians who wanted to play around with this to garner more votes.

That’s all well said. I AGREE that Mt and Id politicians did this the wrong way and shouldn’t be involved in any wildlife management decisions. At the same time it’s overdue that western states quit pandering to eco terrorist groups who exist seemingly only to file lawsuits. Idaho’s implementation of the new rules changed things very little where I live and really only expanded opportunities on private land minus being able to shoot from a motorized vehicle. That’s little advantage when you can’t get a snowmobile or anything else 2 yards of a road due to the dense forest. The trapping on private land adds little opportunity since we don’t find many wolves on private. I know other areas people probably trap a bunch of wolves on private that’s just not the case in North Idaho. We will see what happens but I feel idfg has implemented the rules in a way they will have an uphill battle proving we don’t have an adequate regulatory and management system. The headlines of Idaho proposing to eliminate 90 percent of wolves is the most irritating aspect of this whole fiasco. I hate to see that line parroted by other hunters when it’s in reality impossible with recreational trapping and hunting.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Are MT wolves different? A simple 1 minute internet review of reputable news sources.

Family’s story of survival after wolf attack during camping trip

The Rispoli family from New Jersey were sleeping in their tent in Canada’s Banff National Park when a wolf suddenly attacked. With the help of a nearby camper, the family was able to scare the animal away.

www.nbcnews.com

‘We heard somebody screaming’: Son of B.C. wolf attack victim shares rescue story | Globalnews.ca

Frank Russ said the wolf lunged at his father, Stanley Russ, without provocation outside his home in Port Edward, near Prince Rupert.

globalnews.ca

Wolves killed Alaska teacher in 2010, state says

Candice Berner was attacked and killed in March 2010 by two or more wolves while jogging near the village of Chignik Lake on the Alaska Peninsula, according to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

www.adn.com

IMO/E, I've experienced both settings. From face to face no aggression to surrounded by a pack and my partner and I withdraw from the area.

Every setting is unique and I believe they do keep their distance. However, as more and more people press into wolf country - situations will increase along with the more frequency of wolves and humans, the less fear wolves will possess.

And no... wolves don't run in fear from humans... wolves retreat to a location to monitor / evaluate the setting.

My family's place is in the middle of wolf country in northern MN where population is significantly more dense than in R1. Other than the wilderness areas by the border, the rest of N. MN is much less remote than the mountain west with very limited big chunks of land not plastered with accessible logging roads and cabins. In my 36 years, we had 3 years with a lottery draw for wolf tags 2012-2014. The other years there has been no legal hunting. I would be surprised if the R1 wolves have as much human contact (outside of the parks) in my lifetime as they currently have in N. MN, yet there aren't attacks.

Before the 2012 hunting season, my parents had instances of wolf packs on snowmobile trails that refused to get off the trail and let them past. Eerie but I don't feel like there was a real threat of attack.

All that to say we look ridiculous if we try to play the human risk card as a reason for wolf management. Pets and livestock, absolutely, but not humans.

 

[Trial153]

All that to say we look ridiculous if we try to play the human risk card as a reason for wolf management. Pets and livestock, absolutely, but not humans.

We call out, and rightly so, efforts to bamie-ize the portrayal wildlife as Unrealistic and unnatural in regards to wildlife management. We should take our own advise in that regards. Playing the little red riding hood card makes us look stupid

 

[TheTone]

That’s all well said. I AGREE that Mt and Id politicians did this the wrong way and shouldn’t be involved in any wildlife management decisions. At the same time it’s overdue that western states quit pandering to eco terrorist groups who exist seemingly only to file lawsuits. Idaho’s implementation of the new rules changed things very little where I live and really only expanded opportunities on private land minus being able to shoot from a motorized vehicle. That’s little advantage when you can’t get a snowmobile or anything else 2 yards of a road due to the dense forest. The trapping on private land adds little opportunity since we don’t find many wolves on private. I know other areas people probably trap a bunch of wolves on private that’s just not the case in North Idaho. We will see what happens but I feel idfg has implemented the rules in a way they will have an uphill battle proving we don’t have an adequate regulatory and management system. The headlines of Idaho proposing to eliminate 90 percent of wolves is the most irritating aspect of this whole fiasco. I hate to see that line parroted by other hunters when it’s in reality impossible with recreational trapping and hunting.

Pretty well said in a lot of ways, the legislature got told what to do by after lobby for new rules and once it was done I think they realized they didn’t know what they passed and asked IDFG to help clean it up and implement it. I also don’t think it will make much difference for wolf numbers but the headline of it is why we are facing this new lawsuit

 

[Sytes]

All that to say we look ridiculous if we try to play the human risk card as a reason for wolf management. Pets and livestock, absolutely, but not humans.

Yet amazing, wolves have killed and injured humans. Rare, yep...

Griz attacks in NW MT were rare though have increased as more humans press into their land.

If you're disputing Alaska's Dept of Fish & Game's public release - you could shoot them an email sharing your Minnesota opinion having a relative background...
Statistically however, as more humans press into apex predator land, the less fear and the more occurrences...

Same with mountain lion attacks on humans...
Statistically, the more humans (example California) pressed into their territory, the less fear and the increase in attacks.

To claim otherwise seems ridiculous if attempting to ignore history / statistics. Though to each his / her own.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Yet amazing, wolves have killed and injured humans. Rare, yep...

Griz attacks in NW MT were rare though have increased as more humans press into their land.

If you're disputing Alaska's Dept of Fish & Game's public release - you could shoot them an email sharing your Minnesota opinion having a relative background...
Statistically however, as more humans press into apex predator land, the less fear and the more occurrences...

Same with mountain lion attacks on humans...
Statistically, the more humans (example California) pressed into their territory, the less fear and the increase in attacks.

To claim otherwise seems ridiculous if attempting to ignore history / statistics. Though to each his / her own.

The Alaska deal you posted discussing wolf aggression between 1900 and presumably 2008 in AK and Canada has a single fatality. Using that as justification for keeping them off the list isn't swaying anyone, I'd argue it would do the opposite. We have strong arguments for management. Using arguments with scenarios that are insanely rare sends the message that you don't have a valid basis for your stance.

 

[Sytes]

First, you'd need to go back to the initial post that prompted this portion...

Is there a difference between MT wolves and others. This was questioned by another. That was the initial intent. Not whether the wolf attacks on humans is a good defense to keep wolves in State managed hands.

Questioned whether attacks occur - fact is they do occur.

The rate has dramatically increased as more humans press into apex predator territory. This is shared not only on the ADF&G release though others as well related to wolves, mtn lions, griz, etc...

This is not a key talking point to kill wolves or for the purpose to keep them off the USFWS political agenda.
This is a thread that trailed onto another track, somewhat with one person questioning if MT wolves were different than other wolves.

However, on the note: the law of averages, applied to the growing statistics of human encroachment and increased attacks presents a value to consider as years continue.