Wolves

[Chuby Minnow]

Dang, had no idea they were this big. I am told they are pics from an outfitter. Sure would not want to be hiking and run into a few of these that are hungry!

I erased the faces to respect peoples privacy. Thought I would post these though because these look huge to me.....

[Musky Buck]

Just remember they eat the sick and feeble, then they starve themselves the rest of the year.

[gopher_nation]

Russian wolves get that big.

[BobT]

Just remember they eat the sick and feeble, then they starve themselves the rest of the year.

Come on. Was this really necessary? Nobody has suggested this. Given a choice they'll take the easier option but that doesn't mean they won't try for the more difficult option if needed.

I don't much care for sweet potatoes but given a choice between them and nothing, I'm sure I'd succumb to eating them if I had to.

The anti-wolf crowd is a bit ridiculous sometimes.

[lichen fox]

An adult timber wolf is as big or bigger than the average deer. There is no mistaking them for a coyote in the winter months...even the years young will be larger than most fawns and some 2 yr old does by November.

[BobT]

An adult timber wolf is as big or bigger than the average deer. There is no mistaking them for a coyote in the winter months...even the years young will be larger than most fawns and some 2 yr old does by November.

I can concur with this. Seen plenty while logging during the 80's. In 2006 when our daughter and I were sitting in a home-made brush ground blind we had one approach to within about 20 yards. At first I thought it was a doe coming through the brush until I got a clearer look at it. By the way they move you can tell they belong in the woods.

[lichen fox]

Well, here's how everyone can help move the delisting process along and put the control in the state's hands...maybe some of us will one day have the opportunity to harvest one of these legally!

From the MDHA:

Critical wolf delisting bill being reveiwed right now!

Currently, USFWS is reviewing public input regarding proposed delisting of the wolf in the Great Lakes Region. Wolves of the northern Rocky Mountains were delisted previously this year thanks to Congressional legislation that dictated delisting and insulated against more frivolous lawsuits. Currently, language in from the US House of Representatives is attached to the House version of the Interior Appropriations bill providing the same delisting provision and protection for the Great Lakes Region. But, reportedly some Senators are fighting to remove the provision from Interior Appropriations Conference Committee compromise language. They will succeed in killing this delisting effort unless our US Senators and Representative act on our behalf to stop them.

In 1989 Minnesota had 1500-1750 wolves and they have expanded ever since. In 1992 the federal population criteria for delisting wolves in MN was 1251-1400 wolves by the year 2000. Minnesota has been patient, perhaps too patient, but no more. The endangered species act was enacted to return endangered species to recovered status. The wolf has recovered, but the "antis" will keep mounting legal challenges to keep it listed unless we convince Congress to act.

It is time to speak out, today! Contact your US Congresspersons and Senators today and direct them to contact Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Jack Reed and lobby for the Senate to accept the House wolf delisting language in the Interior Appropriations bill.

This is our time to act!

Mark Wm. Johnson

Executive Director

Minnesota Deer Hunters Association

Click HERE FOR LEGISLATOR EMAIL CONTACT INFORMATION

Better yet, pick up the phone and call. Make your voice the voice of 10,000 voters.

Senator Amy Klobuchar: (612) 727-5220/ (202) 224-3244

Senator Al Franken: (651) 221-1016/ (202) 224-5641

Rep. Tim Waltz: (507) 388-2149/ (202) 225-2472

Rep. Erik Paulsen: (952) 405-8510/ (202) 225-2871

Rep. Betty McCollum: (651) 224-9191/ (202) 225-6631

Rep. Keith Ellison: (612) 522-1212/ (202) 225-4755

Rep. Michele Bachmann: (651) 731-5400/ (202) 225-2331

Rep. Collin Peterson: (218) 847-5056/ (202) 225-2165

Rep. Chip Cravaack: (651) 237-8220/ (202) 225-6211

Please take a moment to make the difference that only your effort can! It's easy to help!

[BobT]

Just for kicks I decided to do a web search to learn the details regarding the size of a timber wolf. I learned they can be up to about 33" tall at the shoulder, 6.5 feet long nose to tail, and weigh up to 175 pounds.

I happened to also notice a link to a site titled, "Alberta's Record Size Wolf" and so I checked it out. The site talked about an email that had been floating around indicating a wolf that reportedly weighed upwards of 235 pounds by wildlife experts. But what really caught my attention was the photo used on the site was also the same photo depicted in the first group in this thread. It was the one on the left of those three.

Makes one wonder how many times the same photo is used over and over and over to add apparent validity to many stories.

[crothmeier]

that e-mail has been around, ive got it a few times, and the location always changes... the last one i got stated it was shot outside of minot, nd.

[Wallydog]

I believe most of those images are from wolves taken legally in Idaho this season.

I have a tag in my pocket and intend to make at least one go at 'em next month.

I laugh at much of the verbiage that people tend to embelish and add to these circulating emails. Much of which is complete baloney.

WD

[leech~~]

Oooh another Wolve post.

[Chuby Minnow]

Just for kicks I decided to do a web search to learn the details regarding the size of a timber wolf. I learned they can be up to about 33" tall at the shoulder, 6.5 feet long nose to tail, and weigh up to 175 pounds.

I was bear hunting in Alberta two years ago and the wolf that another was fortunate to harvest was 7'-0" from nose to tail. Dont know how high it stood but I remember thinking to myself how huge they really are at that time as well.

I too heard it was through an outfitter in Idaho.

Certainly not trying to start any type of trouble with the post I just thought they were really cool pics.

[JConrad]

NEWS RELEASE

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

101 S Webster, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707

Phone: 888-936-7463 TDD: 711

dnr.wi.gov - www.wisconsin.gov

Archived under: [dnr.wi.gov/news]

Wisconsin's long fought battle to manage growing wolf populations within its borders is nearly over

Contact(s): Bill Cosh, DNR spokesperson – (608) 267-2773

MADISON -- With the announcement today that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is removing the gray wolf from Endangered Species Act protection (exit DNR), Wisconsin’s long fought battle to manage growing wolf populations within its borders is nearly over. Gov. Scott Walker has charged the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with being ready to begin implementing Wisconsin’s Wolf Management plan by Feb. 1, 2012.

“We are eager and ready to take on the challenges of wolf management,” said DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp. “We appreciate Governor Walker’s attention to this issue.”

More information about the gray wolf in Wisconsin and a copy of the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan are available on the DNR HSOforum.

Stepp also thanked the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (exit DNR) for their responsiveness to the concerns that she raised, especially with regard to their finding that the population of wolves in the Western Great Lakes is a single species. In addition, she praised the work of Wisconsin’s Congressional Delegation and that of Michigan and Minnesota in raising the importance of addressing this issue now at the national level.

“I want to acknowledge the citizens of Wisconsin for their patience as we worked on the delisting,” said Stepp. “They were persistent in bringing their concerns to my attention. It is because of that persistence that we were able to achieve the delisting.”

Today’s action is only the first step in the process. Once wolves are delisted, the DNR will be able to do depredation controls, via trapping and permits to landowners in depredation areas.

“While the department is committed to long-term conservation of wolves in Wisconsin, it is critical that we be allowed to manage wildlife populations within our borders,” said Stepp.

[LipRipper!!]

Just heard the same for MN on the radio!!

[EJ_Mac]

FYI - those photos are of an Idaho Game Warden and they're photo-shopped. They've been running around the internet for quite some time.

Also, remember that "up to 175 lbs." usually means that's the biggest one ever taken. A "big" wolf in MN, on the other hand, is 100 lbs give or take, and the biggest I've seen was 130.

[lichen fox]

Here's a little excerpt from an online search...

CHARACTERISTICS

Average males weigh between 100 and 145 pounds with females weighing roughly 10 to 20 percent less. The heaviest on record was caught in Alaska in 1939, weighing 175 pounds. Though the Guinness book of Animal World Records mentions an unconfirmed specimen weighing 230 pounds. They measure 32 to 36 inches shoulder height and 5 to 7 feet in length, from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail. Their long, powerful legs allow them to travel as far as 70 miles a day, and through rough terrain like deep snow. They can reach speeds of up to 40 miles an hour for short periods of time.

[caseymcq]

FYI - those photos are of an Idaho Game Warden and they're photo-shopped. They've been running around the internet for quite some time. ...

The first picture comes up in a Google search and there are numerous stories on it. The most common seems to be that it is from Canada. There is an article from an Idaho G&F official saying it is NOT from Idaho.

[paul pachowicz]

Our GF&P announced that the DNA from wolf killed near Custer, SD is determined to be of the "Great Lakes" version. Something I didn't know is that they are under the auspieces of the the state from the Minn border to the Mo River. West of the Mo they are proected by the feds. The last quote of the reporting agent read: There's no desire on the state's part to manage for wolves. With as inhabited a state as we have, there's really no place for them". To me, that's a "wink-wink". The only way a wolf would be protected in my parts is if it's a full body suit of Kevlar.

[Musky Buck]

What I don't quite understand is look at Idaho's take on wolves and here we sit with 10x as many and less options of big game for them to eat and Idaho has no wolf quota, did I read that right ? So if we had high dollar elk we'd be good to go, no holds barred ?

[Eric Wettschreck]

Our GF&P announced that the DNA from wolf killed near Custer, SD is determined to be of the "Great Lakes" version.

We're trading wolves for cougars?????

[EJ_Mac]

Quote:

The last quote of the reporting agent read: There's no desire on the state's part to manage for wolves. With as inhabited a state as we have, there's really no place for them". To me, that's a "wink-wink". The only way a wolf would be protected in my parts is if it's a full body suit of Kevlar.

Unfortunately, that's exactly the attitude that led to wolves becoming protected in the first place. Remember that the whole reason why wolves were de-listed and then re-listed AGAIN was because of the lawsuit brought by a number of environmental groups. And the primary reason those groups sued was because every state had a management plan in place - except Wyoming. Their plan was along the same lines of the "wink-wink," "we-don't-care-how-many-you-kill" variety.

Regarding the identities in the photos, an Idaho warden is the one who told me that one of the photos was of another warden. Maybe he was wrong. I don't know. What I DO know is that of the dozens of wolves I've seen up close, none ever looked that big - not here in the midwest, anyway.