earthandscience:metazoa-etcetera:petakills:montanamongrel:A good size comparison showing what wolves

earthandscience:metazoa-etcetera:petakills:montanamongrel:A good size comparison showing what wolves WERE in Montana and wolves are here NOW. This actually brings up a very good point.The wolves being reintroduced to places like Montana are not the same as the ones that originally lived there and can actually be detrimental to the environment, despite the ideas good intentions. Here’s another visual reference, illustrated by ~DarkHyena:The one on the top left is Canis lupus occidentalis, the subspecies being brought into Montana and surrounding states, while the lower right one is Canis lupus irremotus, the subspecies they’re trying to replace.Irremotus was very secretive and predominantly nocturnal, they avoided roads and other man made structures - conflict with domestic dogs and livestock was rare. They generally lived individually or in pairs, pack activity only common during the months of January-February for breeding and these packs consisted of about 4-7 individuals. Females, breeding at 2yrs old, had litters of 1-3 pups and kept them for about 18 months. When it came to feeding they were very selective and avoided old carcasses or the kills of others, except during harsh winters when it was necessary. A large portion of their hunts were targeted at rodents, and surplus killing was negligible. Competition with other predators was low, other canids coexisted and thrived with the presence of irremotus wolves. Occidentalis aren’t very secretive and show little fear of humans, avoidance of man made structures is minimal and are known to prey on both Domestic Dogs and livestock. They live in small (5 members) to large (20+ members) packs, it isn’t uncommon for packs to merge. Females can breed at 1yr and produce litters of 5-9 pups, these pups usually remain with the pack. Occidentalis (Mackenzie Valley) wolves prefer Elk calves as prey, with a low interest in rodents, and surplus killing is common - 3 to 5 ungulates can be killed for every one consumed. There is much competition with other predators, and encounters are often fatal - Coyote, Fox, Mountain Lions, and Bear populations have been impacted as a result of this.The introduction of Mackenzie Valley wolves resulted in the spread of wolf borne diseases and pose a threat not only to the populations of Elk and other ungulates, but to other predators and domesticated animals. “You do not have an ecosystem large enough in the lower 48 for this animal” -Dr. Geist, Professor Emeritus from the University of Calgary=CynicalSerenade goes into great depth on the subject over here.So why is the only source of information I can find about this shit…deviantart?oh, here we go - real research.“In 1997, researchers including William Ripple from Oregon State University noticed that the aspen trees in Yellowstone were dying. By counting the rings from core samples, they found that the aspens have not regenerated since the 1930’s,shortly after the wolves were eliminated.“Predation by wolves can have a big impact on the ecosystem,” explained Ripple, who has published several articles on the relationship between wolves and aspen growth. “The wolf as a keystone predator will prey on elk, and then the elk eat young aspen, cottonwood, and willow trees. Now with wolves back in the system, the plants are flourishing more than before.”Ripple’s collaborator Robert Beschta, also of Oregon State University, has found similar results in the cottonwood trees. He discovered the effects of a process called atrophic cascade, in which an organism at one end of the food chain affects all other organisms in that ecosystem. This means that wolves not only decrease the number of elk, but also change their behavior. Elk tend to avoid areas frequented by wolves, which include aspen thickets. This may, in turn, protect saplings from being eaten.“When the wolves disappeared from Yellowstone, the saplings stopped growing up into mature trees,” said Beschta.The trees in turn have a wide-reaching effect on the rest of the ecosystem. With signs of plant health improving, Ripple was optimistic:“We might see more birds, an increase in beavers, which would create more ponds, which creates more habitats … there’s all types of cascading effects that we’re starting to document with the reintroduction of wolves.”” - JYI.ORGCarter Niermeyer Interview (Outdoor Idaho) Spring 2009 (Carter Niermeyer was the Idaho Wolf Recovery Coordinator for USFWS from 2000 to 2006)Q.There are those who say we brought the wrong wolves into Idaho in 1995 and 1996, that they’re bigger wolves than the ones that were here.CN: I have to support the science again, and specialists in morphology and genetics on wolves indicate that the wolf that was brought down from Canada is the same wolf that lived here previously. And I did some research into books on early wolves that were captured in the Northern Rockies, even as far south as Colorado during the days that wolves were being hunted down in the 1930s; and the body weights were very much the same.So I feel that this wolf that was brought from Canada is the same species and genetics as the wolves that lived here once upon a time. I think people have to remember that the northern Rockies — we call it the northern Rockies in Idaho and Montana, but actually we’re a southern extension of the northern Rockies out of Canada — and all of those wolves in Canada have the potential and the ability to disperse. I believe what happened over the last 50-60 years is that individual wolves have come from Canada following the Rocky Mountain chain and ended up periodically in places like Montana and Idaho.Or Mike Jimenez (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist and Wyoming wolf recovery coordinator)Jimenez disputed claims that the wolves reintroduced from Canada in the mid-1990s are a larger, more aggressive breed than had historically lived in Wyoming.“While scientists once divided wolves into 24 subspecies, he said more recent DNA evidence shows five subspecies in North America. Further, given the fact that wolves tend to disburse hundreds of miles, he said wolves from Canada likely interbred with Wyoming wolves and vice versa before they were exterminated from the region.“The idea that those Canadian wolves are different … the argument gets weak,” he said. “Where they transition from one subspecies to the next is totally up for grabs.”You guys have to understand that wildlife biologists, zoologists, specialists, environmentalists… are not a bunch of fluffy bunny morons. A group of people who’s education and work is dedicated to preserving and protecting all things nature did not sit down and say “lets introduce a nonnative invasive species to montana for tourism!” or whatever fucking reason you think they would have done something that irresponsible. This myth was started by a very small someone and spread like wildfire as truth because it’s an easy way to get them out without having to stand up and say “I just don’t like that they fuck with my ranching business”. Then you pick it up as a concerned individual and spread it to more concerned individuals and suddenly its a thing even though its false.I shouldn’t even have to argue a point about this. Sit the fuck down and actually think about what you’re suggesting - “a vast majority of specialists in the field are in favor of introducing an invasive nonative species to montana.” Seriously?Get your shit together, guys. The balance in this area has been off for ages - we’re not LOSING ALL THE ELK, they’re just less overpopulated as things shift back to the way they SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR AGES. They just HAVEN’T been. BECAUSE YOU KILLED OFF AN ENTIRE SPECIES THERE FOR A GOOD LONG WHILE AND EVEN A SLIGHT CHANGE FUCKS UP ECOSYSTEMS, LET ALONE EXTINCTION.Furthermore, wolves are usually only capable of bringing down calves or sick/injured/old/weak individuals that would die anyway.  POPULATIONS ARE DENSITY DEPENDENT BECAUSE RESOURCES ARE LIMITED in natural systems.  In the absence of predators, prey populations are too large, which results in over-crowded conditions and weak/small individuals that DIE FROM STARVATION.  Your population is not going to grow in the absence of predators because predation is considered compensatory mortality.  This ideology that “predators are bad” and that they reduce cervid populations is archaic and false.  If you want a healthy cervid population, you need predators.  Also, there really is no “balance” in nature — there are too many environmental variables.  -- source link
Tumblr Blog : windylizmt.tumblr.com

More pics about