IFish Fishing Forum banner

Oregon wolves - natural or introduced species?

10K views 53 replies 25 participants last post by  waterbobber 
#1 ·
I'll admit I don't follow this topic nearly as closely as some of you but I seem to remember some discussion regarding whether or not the subspecies of wolf that exists today in Oregon (and throughout the West for that matter) is in fact not the same subspecies that existed historically. Is this actually the case?

This came to my mind again today while reading the Oregonian article about OR-7's potential travels into California and how they never though they would see them again. Are we truly seeing the rebuilding of a once extinct population or simply the growth of another very distructive introduced non native species?

(either way, they are a colossal waste of money and a huge detriment to the sportsmen (and ranchers) who have been this nation's greatest conservationists)
 
#3 · (Edited)
It is but interesting just the same. The last encounter with wolves I can find in the L&C Journals is probably somewhere in today's Idaho. And they did take copious notes.

Another example is the old B/W photos of indigenous PNW people. You find some wearing animal hides like beaver, seal and the like but I can't find anything that resembles a coyote much less a wolf. Not to say there weren't any wolves here but I don't think they were prevelant.
 
#6 ·
In my opinion the argument was irrelevant from the outset, especially coming from sportsmen. There is a LONG list of wildlife populations that have been reestablished with subspecies from other regions. The precedent was set long before wolves became a hot topic. It is far more constructive for sportsmen to advocate for responsible wildlife management than for them to be drawn into a debate about "non-native species".
 
#7 ·
In my opinion the argument was irrelevant from the outset, especially coming from sportsmen. There is a LONG list of wildlife populations that have been reestablished with subspecies from other regions. The precedent was set long before wolves became a hot topic. It is far more constructive for sportsmen to advocate for responsible wildlife management than for them to be drawn into a debate about "non-native species".
I don't believe that is completely true. The fact that the re-introduction of wolves in this area is based on poor science I.E. the introduction of a wolf species that did not originate from the area they were introduced, leaves the science as a whole, suspect and ripe for question.
 
#8 ·
unfortunatley i think they are hear to stay. not much anybody can do to change that fact. my problem,and alot of peoples problem,is that i dont believe you can trust the people behind the scenes. they say we will manage them after we have a certain number. ok..decent comprimise..but once its reached they WILL say its not enough. thats what happened at the start. there was a number..i think 300 or 350..once that was reached it was the same old thing..not enough for genitic diversity. the thing that gets me is...if we screw this up..and something happens and every wolf in the u.s.a. dies all we have to do is ask canada for some more and start over. i bet canada wouldnt even charge us. they are not an endangered species. we are treating them like these are the last ones on the face of the earth and we HAVE to save them. put a open season on them 365 days a year, that would make alot of hunters happy. if they go bye bye oops. "hello canada this is the united states..we screwed up again can we have a few more?" canada.."no problem how many do you want we have 1000's?"
 
#12 ·
I am not sure that anyone really believes that anything aside from political expediency is the core issue. It would be hard to get someone to say so with a straight face.

Maybe they will migrate due south and find wild horses to be easier pickings than antelope...
 
#15 ·
What other animal that was introduced into the USA is covered by Endangered Species Act protections? The Canadian Gray Wolf is the only one I have ever heard of. There are some invasives that are allowed to exist due to the fact they are beneficial or at least not detrimental and hugely expensive but that is a lot different than what is being discussed here!
 
#19 ·
Whether one likes wolves or not, genetically, there is no significant difference between gray wolves in Oregon today and the pelts from wolves killed here 100 years ago. A little silly to argue that the original wolves in the state were somehow genetically isolated from wolves in Canada or elsewhere. State lines, national boundaries, etc... are human inventions, and not something animals pay much attention to.

I'd second the observation that hunters should be careful with this line of reasoning. Over-hunting and extermination efforts by ranchers nearly wiped out rocky mountain elk in Northeast Oregon by 1900. In 1912, a number of elk were shipped into the state (ironically, from Yellowstone) to rebuild populations (over the objections of the livestock industry). Hunting for elk was illegal in NE Oregon until 1933, while populations rebuilt. See page 8 of:

http://www.icbemp.gov/science/clarkpatrick.pdf

If one argues that the wolves in the state today are non-native due to the original re-introduced population in Yellowstone originating in Canada, it would seem the same would apply to the elk in state as well. Be careful what you wish for, many of the same livestock interests in NE Oregon complaining about wolves today are the same folks who complain about "over-populating elk" that are destroying their grazing.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...at_hazers_are_now_trying_to_run_them_off.html
 
#21 ·
Whether one likes wolves or not, genetically, there is no significant difference between gray wolves in Oregon today and the pelts from wolves killed here 100 years ago. A little silly to argue that the original wolves in the state were somehow genetically isolated from wolves in Canada or elsewhere. State lines, national boundaries, etc... are human inventions, and not something animals pay much attention to.

I'd second the observation that hunters should be careful with this line of reasoning. Over-hunting and extermination efforts by ranchers nearly wiped out rocky mountain elk in Northeast Oregon by 1900. In 1912, a number of elk were shipped into the state (ironically, from Yellowstone) to rebuild populations (over the objections of the livestock industry). Hunting for elk was illegal in NE Oregon until 1933, while populations rebuilt. See page 8 of:

http://www.icbemp.gov/science/clarkpatrick.pdf

If one argues that the wolves in the state today are non-native due to the original re-introduced population in Yellowstone originating in Canada, it would seem the same would apply to the elk in state as well. Be careful what you wish for, many of the same livestock interests in NE Oregon complaining about wolves today are the same folks who complain about "over-populating elk" that are destroying their grazing.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...at_hazers_are_now_trying_to_run_them_off.html
So did the elk that you say were transplanted in Oregon from Yellowstone originate from Canada? Are you saying that Rocky Mtn. Elk from Wyoming are of different DNA than the Rocky Mtn. elk from Oregon?
 
#28 ·
Wolves were most certainly native, heck the first organization of our state government was the wolf commission to pay a bounty in the Willamette valley, so you could say that Oregon was founded because of wolves. ODFW has not reintroduced them so now that that is clear the other arguments come into play. Oregon was noted as having a different sub-species of wolf, called the Cascade red wolf. Probably with a difference like blacktails and mule deer. This begs the question, are the wolves from Canada genetically similar enough to be recapturing lost ground,or is this like a similar subspecies, better adapted taking over ceded ground? If the wolves here are not the same sub-species, should they be protected? canis Lupis familiaris - your basic house dog, is about as genetically similar as some sub species are from Canadian wolves. If that is the case can anyone argue they are actually endangered? If the Canadian wolves here are different enough, then they should not be covered under the Oregon endangered species act.
ODFW in co-ordination with USFWS is doing a genetic comparison between the cascade red wolf and the Canadian wolves here now. I am very interested to hear the results. If they are the same, I am for protecting them, if the are different, I want them 100% eliminated as a non-native invasive species.
 
#29 · (Edited)
I agree with Brian M. From all the historical information I have read the wolves inhabiting Oregon were a smaller subspecie of the Canadian wolves that have been reintroduced. I don't think that is disputable. Many of the Canadian varieties whether they are Timber Wolves or Tundra Wolves or whatever are all considerably larger wolves. This is just fact. The subspecie originally here (Cascade Wolves) apparently didn't attain weights of 100 lbs. The larger Canadians can and do reach weights in the 175+lb range. I think a good comparison might be Coues Whitetails or Texas Hill Country Whitetails compared to their larger Northern cousins. They are all genetically Whitetails, but there are considerable differences and they are very apparent.

One thing that gets sorta lost in the shuffle is that there were around 6 functioning packs living in Montana in 1995 when the reintroduction began. There were also viable breeding pairs on the south side of YS. It seems reasonable that enacting strict protections on these populations would have allowed a natural dispersement. Instead, in their big hurry they highgraded Pittman-Robertson funds and plopped Canadian wolves down here and there and they have been prolific. Of course they are doing well. They had a smorgasbord of elk, deer, sheep, llamas, domestic dogs, and cattle. They are a hell of an apex predator. They are capable. I suspect the strains that they introduced are even more capable than at least what was in Oregon historically.

Personally I don't think it's gonna work in the long run. I think we will endure some painful experiments on our game populations that mimic what's happened elsewhere, but ultimately the tide will turn and the sexyness of the 'spirit of the wild' will run full circle. There was a reason why they were largely exterminated before. They are a hard fit with the development of the west, ranching, and tightly regulated game populations. I think the novelty will wear off and be replaced with realty.

It's too bad because they are a neat animal and deserve a place at the table but without really tight controls they will spell their own doom. It's their nature. Watch. Bet a lot of our angst will be for nothing. They could have repopulated previously. They will become their own worse enemy at some point. I think if we wait them out equilibrium will set in and they might find better pickins elsewhere eventually. They had plenty of time to come here before.
 
#30 ·
The Rocky Mtn Gray Wolf was/is reintroduced as an “nonessential experimental population” under 10(j). Nonessential under ESA already asserts the population is not required for the continuation of the species (so arguments of they aren’t “endangered” are moot because that’s what 10j already means as nonessential). Experimental populations means under 10j that species needs only to meet the probable historic range (rather than proven beyond any doubt range) of a species. This threshold is also determined by Law at the sole discretion of the Secretary of the Interior under 10j. Also know subspecies of wolf very much overlapped, it would be a rare thing to say only one subspecies existed in the NW or Rocky Mtns regions so that argument would never hold up either of only “one” existed and therefore this "new" one is invasive. A positive side of 10j is it does not require a Section 7 to take (kill or relocate) individual animals if their removal likely would do no harm to the recovery. This is why a wolf can be taken within ESA designated habitats without breaking the normal Section 7 ESA Laws.

Not advocating the program (they need to be managed better) but there are so many posts claiming to know ESA but in truth they are not accurate at all to the actual Law.
 
#37 ·
The analogy between salmon and wolf was to bring out the fact that human interferance in the breeding of a species, Changes the species into a non native. Calling them invasive was not the correct terminology. Human altered or geneticly corupted may be a more correct term. In effect humans have bred these wolf to be human dependant. They need dozens of lawyers, tens of thousands of wolf supporters and corupted laws like the ESA to survive in a completely human altered habitat. If the habitat is nothing like what the native wolf was geneticly raised in, And the wolf was also imported into this human altered habitat from a completely different wolf genetic pool. There is nothing Native about these wolves. The ESA should have no impact on how the state manages the wolf. They are very much like feral horses. Logic has nothing to do with the management of wolf or feral horses.
 
#42 ·
Very well put Baltz! That is the thought that comes to mind when I hear someone saying that since wolves were once native they NEED to be reestablished. If we really want things to be "natural" we need to put Oregon back to the way it was when development first started. Remove all dams, return all winter range to wild game so they their populations can be at maximum levels to sustain "historic" levels of predators, leave all forests alone ect.....

Once again I wish Oregon was a place where wolves could fit in in a natural way without having to spend thousands of dollars to try and assist them in getting along. Time will show it was a pipe dream. :twocents:
 
#48 ·
"Sportman's Guide to Game Animals" published by Outdoor life books in 1968

Chapter on Gray and Red Wolves

On page 101 there is a map of North America, with a large dot in the middle of Oregon representing the distribution of the Gray Wolf a.k.a Lobo Wolf, Timber Wolf, and Canis Lupus. Canis Lupus is the same name for the Eurasian Wolf because they are the same species.
 
#49 ·
"Sportman's Guide to Game Animals" published by Outdoor life books in 1968

Chapter on Gray and Red Wolves

On page 101 there is a map of North America, with a large dot in the middle of Oregon representing the distribution of the Gray Wolf a.k.a Lobo Wolf, Timber Wolf, and Canis Lupus. Canis Lupus is the same name for the Eurasian Wolf because they are the same species.
The family canis lupus also includes the yellow lab laying next to my computer desk. Last I checked, she is not a wolf, even if she sometimes thinks otherwise. The subspecies breakdown of canis lupus cannot be omitted because there is such great variation within the species.

The debate on this thread is centered over whether the Mackenzie Valley wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) is greatly different from the now extinct Cascade Mountains wolf (Canis lupus fuscus).


E
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top