Wolf types in MT?

[SWMontana1]

I understand that Gray wolves were "reintroduced' into Yellowstone when Timber wolves are what is actually native... I get it that Gray are bigger than Timber but can someone educate me on these "hybrid" wolves that I continually hear about. I always here "they introduced these damn hybrid wolves and they are reeking more havoc than a Timber wolf would". I think I am missing something....

 

[jryoung]

It was the McKenzie wolves (a timber species....all a subset of general grays) that were re-introduced in Yellowstone. I think the issue of them being "not native" or "hybrids" is overblown. Wolves are going to kill and eat ungulates and compete with bears and cats.

I think any difference on the impact to ungulates because of the subspecies of wolf is immaterial at best.

 

[Bambistew]

From what reserch I've done, there is zero credible information citing the reintroduced wolves are any different than what was there originally. If I remember corectly there is only 4 subspecies of wolves recognized in NA

 

[bjtc_brian]

The reasearch I found, said they were genetically different, but not significant enough to stop them from bringing them into the greater Yellowstone area. But, the other information I found said the wolves they brought in were as little as 10% larger in body size and as much as 20%(I can't remember if that is the exact number or not) larger. This makes me have to respectfully disagree with JR. 10% bigger wolves mean they need to eat more to both grow and sustain the 10%. Now is it significant enough, no one will ever know.

From the information I have gotten, the wolves that were re-introduced have wiped out the native wolves. The theory was that they cross-breed, but that is not what has happened. Now, I haven't seen any real reports on this, nor do I think there have been any studies done. This is just things I have come across to lead me to this assumption.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with Bambistew regarding the differences...there isnt any.

There is no credible data I've ever seen to prove that the reintroduced wolves in MT are any bigger than those that were re-establishing themselves in the NW part of Montana.

I've also seen nothing that they reintroduced wolves wiped out the ones that were already in Montana.

Also, I think there is probably a natural range in wolf sizes within the same pack of more than 10%. Not every wolf in a pack will reach 100 pounds even at maturity.

Go shoot 20 coyotes, 20 bears, 20 lions, 20 elk, 20 wolves...etc. etc. They all arent the same size.

Sounds to me like some are gathering "research" through lobo watch and Toby Bridges.

 

[SWMontana1]

Buzz - off topic and will probably fire some people up..... but Missoula has more than it's fair share of Bastards, probably more than anywhere else in Montana.

 

[bjtc_brian]

I agree with Bambistew regarding the differences...there isnt any.

There is no credible data I've ever seen to prove that the reintroduced wolves in MT are any bigger than those that were re-establishing themselves in the NW part of Montana.

I've also seen nothing that they reintroduced wolves wiped out the ones that were already in Montana.

Also, I think there is probably a natural range in wolf sizes within the same pack of more than 10%. Not every wolf in a pack will reach 100 pounds even at maturity.

Go shoot 20 coyotes, 20 bears, 20 lions, 20 elk, 20 wolves...etc. etc. They all arent the same size.

Sounds to me like some are gathering "research" through lobo watch and Toby Bridges.

This is from wikipedia.

SubspeciesMain article: Subspecies of Canis Lupus
Historically, the wolf populations originally native to Yellowstone were classed under the subspecies C. l. irremotus. When the issue of what subspecies to use for the introduction was raised, park service representatives stated that the taxonomy of grey wolves had been revised numerous times, and that C. l. irremotus was not a distinct subspecies, but a geographical variant. Three publications were made on the appropriateness of using a founding population of Canadian wolves: Brewster and Fritz supported the motion, while Nowak determined that the original Yellowstone wolves were more similar to C. l. nubilus, a subspecies already present in Minnesota, and that the Canadian animals proposed by Brewster and Fritz were of the subspecies C. l. occidentalis, a significantly larger animal. The rationale behind Brewster and Fritz's favour was that wolves show little genetic diversity, and that the original population was extinct anyway. This was contradicted by Nowak, who contested that Minnesotan wolves were much more similar in size and shape to the original population than the proposed Canadian wolves, though he conceded that C. l. occidentalis was probably already migrating southward even before human intervention. The final use of Canadian wolves for the reintroduction was not without criticism: the American Society of Mammalogists criticised the project's lack of deference to the principle of Bergmann's rule, pointing out that the wolves used for the introduction were 30% larger than the original park wolves, and were adapted to much colder climates. Finally, the society questioned the legality under the ESA of “recovering” a taxon of wolf by expanding the historic range of a less similar type, when more closely related founder stock still remained available.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowstone

And this isn't only or original information I read on it. I believe it was the wolf study supporting the reintroduction of wolves where I read that they decided the genetic difference wasn't enough. But I can't seem to find that right now.

 

[Summitthunting]

Welcome to Wikipedia
.the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
3,941,231 articles in English
Arts
Biography
Geography
History
Mathematics
Science
Society
Technology
All*portals

Your using the term "research" rather loosely.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Bigger wolves for you to hunt/shoot. Get off your asses and kill some of them instead of whimpering about it. I'd prefer to have a magnum wolf, instead of a miniwolf. I'd prefer the black bears be bigger around here. Can we introduce some larger ones somehow?

 

[bjtc_brian]

Welcome to Wikipedia
.the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
3,941,231 articles in English
Arts
Biography
Geography
History
Mathematics
Science
Society
Technology
All*portals

Your using the term "research" rather loosely.

Okay, if it is so not true, go ahead and change it. I don't have time to do all of the research for you guys, I have a job to get to. This was an argument for almost 20 years ago, not now. They are here and not going anywhere.

 

[mtmiller]

Lots of info out there...even better than wikipedia.

1. Check out the Wolf Reintroduction EIS
   
2. Brewster, W.G. and S.H. Fritts. 1994.
   
3. Genetic Variation of Naturally Colonizing Wolves in the Central Rocky Mountains STEPHEN H. FORBES* AND DIANE K. BOYD

Check out the above EIS and research papers. If you want additional info. check into the bibs as well.

 

[Big Fin]

I understand that Gray wolves were "reintroduced' into Yellowstone when Timber wolves are what is actually native... I get it that Gray are bigger than Timber but can someone educate me on these "hybrid" wolves that I continually hear about. I always here "they introduced these damn hybrid wolves and they are reeking more havoc than a Timber wolf would". I think I am missing something....

Here is how I look at it SW.

First, if someone says that, they are probably taking hits off the Lobowatch/SFW pipe. Second, as many mentioned, the differences, if any at all, are not enough to be a big issue.

How much of that "supposed" size claim is truly a sub-species issue, or the fact of Bergmann's principle at work? No one seems to have the answer when asked that question, which I suspect is due to logic interfering with their opinions.

To me, the bigger issue is this.

When a sub species is extinct, such as a wolf subspecies, an elk subspeices, a wild sheep subspecies, a turkey subspecies, etc., do we just fold the tent and not reintroduce because no native stock exists? Or, do we restore a close subspecies in the native habitat of the now extinct subspecies?

Seems hunters look like serious hypocrites when we complain about reintroduction of a "supposed" wolf subspecies to range previously occupied by an extinct wolf subspecies, yet we reintroduce different species of elk where the extinct Merriam's elk and Eastern Elk used to live. We reintroduce Rocky Mountain Bighorns in the Missouri River Breaks of Montana, providing the largest sheep in the world, yet the native subspecies was the Audubon's Bighorn, extinct for the last 85 years. And many other instances.

To make that claim on wolves, when we promote our efforts with so many other species, makes one look real stupid. Really hypocritical. But, those fringes in the wolf discussion have never been to worried about intellectual honesty or hypocrisy.

When some guys starts talking to me about this subspecies issues, the first thing I do is try to discern if he passed 8th grade. Then, if he looks like he might have some level of verbal comprehension, I ask him if he likes have sheep in the Missouri Breaks, or elk in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona, or New Mexico. If he gives me a confused look, I move on.

Often, the best approach is to just ignore the person. Good luck with your efforts to have an intelligent conversation with those types. You will need more patience and tolerance than I have.

 

[jryoung]

I couldn't agree more with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that post.

 

[drahthaar]

Come on you guys!!!!! You guys must have had your eyes and ears closed. Why, just up in my neck of the woods, I heard of no less than 10 wolves that were killed that weighed in at an excess of 200 pounds, one was closer to 300 because the guy holding it was 6'4" and weighed 270 himself.

 

[Lawnboy]

Fin along the lines you just mentioned I remember my dad ( a fisheries biologist )mumbling about fish re introduction. He is invited to a Trout Unlimited banquet and all he hears is how he should be pushing brown trout instead of the westlope cutthroat because they fight better.

I'm pretty sure that he never attended another one of those events. His job at the time was to try and restore the native fish in the waters it once swam and instead the "fishermen" were more concerned about whether or not the (non native) fish was a better fighting one.

I learned to be more tolerant towards biologists watching him. There are way too many in the hunting and fishing communities that are clueless.

If I remember correctly Critters wolf was no giant freak. Seemed pretty normal for a female according to FWP. I also remember Breaks Runner commenting about this topic after he shot his wolf. If I remember right he didn't totally believe in the "hulk size" wolf theory either.

 

[HowaHunter]

no difference. As i tell people there are not fences at our borders to keep animals in their own habitat. There are no geographical barriers to keep wolves seperate when they were present in Idaho and Canada. Those that think these wolves are not "native" are not educated about facts of wildlife management. My professor in college was the one responsible for most research and creating a model about Yellowstone wolf re-introduction. Wildlife managers know for a fact that introducing non-native species can cause interruption in the normal ebb and flow of wildlife populations. It has been done but with bad consequences-especially with fish.
There are two types of wolves in NA; the gray wolf (with subspecies-species usually seperated by geography) and the red wolf. Additionally there was/is the mexican gray wolf. This wolf has been re-introduced through a captive breeding program and has not shown much progress last I checked.

Healthy wildlife populations are cyclic in nature (pop. numbers up and down) Wolves were growing exponentially until recently and I am happy that we can start truly managing Canis lupus