Wolf Attack on Dogs (Pics not Suitable for Some)

The early fur trappers recognized three different species of "wolf" in the west back in the early 1800's. One described seems to be the red wolf (not sure of the name) that is presently found in very small numbers in Texas and maybe AZ. The other was the gray wolf and the other was the coyote (they recognized it as a coyote and called it that but also refered to them as wolves)

I read one trappers report of a pack of up to 50 wolves.

Several trappers reported that wolves would often sneak into camp at night and steal food items especially leather items. I have read several reports of trappers having their moccasins stolen by wolves from under their heads as they slept!

The only human casualties I've ever seen repoted from those days are several instances of trapers being bit by rabid wolves and subsequently dieng of rabies themselves. The descriptions of their final days are pretty scary.

Whether or not the Canadian wolf is an actual separate species is something to ponder. When considering any weight differences in same species animals from different lattitudes, it might be worth considering that it is typical of mammals from the northern lattitudes to be much larger than those from the south. The whitetail deer is a good example when you consider the high end weights of canadiena and American north woods deer with the deer of say Georgia or as an extreme, the deer of south florida that are not very large at all!
 
Quote:
As a self-proclaimed expert on the matter, you should know the difference.



Hmmm.. don't recall saying I was an "expert..."

Quote:
Your “proof” is weak at very best.



Says you, if you want "proof" or "documentation" then get it yourself, it's out there for those of us who DON'T choose to ignore it. I'm not here to give you reports to show facts when you don't agree.

Quote:
Can you document that the wolves in Idaho were a separate subspecies from the ones that were re-introduced



Can YOU document that they weren't /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif????

Quote:
people have also called the “Canadian wolf” more aggressive and yet don’t show where they get that conclusion.



How about there are people who have seen the difference in effects of the two, must they take notes over years time and submit them in order for it to be factual??

Quote:
As far as your, I live here so I should know defense, would you allow politicians in Washington, DC to use the same logic?



/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif Not even going to dignify that one with any further response.

Where's your "documentation" on everything you beleive to be true here, don't expect it from me but not have any yourself- if I'm so wrong, then by all means, "document" the "proof" that I am. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
The difference between the native Idaho wolves and the introduced population from Canada is largely a matter of perspective. Are they a differenty species? What makes them a different species? Here is a link to a study on the populations. 2.0.CO%3B2-%23&size=LARGE" target="_blank">http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0888-88...&size=LARGE I'm not a geneticist, maybe someone who is can better interpret the study. What I glean from it is that the two groups are "moderately divergent". What the hell does "moderately divergent" mean? I'm quite sure that I've read that the genetic differences between coyotes and wolves are also minimal, so the genetic similarities, or differences, are probably more dependant on one's perspective than anything. I don't think anybody knows for sure. Here's another link to wolf friendly site. IMO, the "Myth vs. Science" section of this site shows the futility and politics of the debate. http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/index.html

The glaring point is that there is no definitive answer to the question of species. If there was we might not have Canadian wolves in Idaho. If the species are different, the reintroduction only hurts the native population and would not be allowed. If they are the same, then they are not endangered. Reintroduction of Canadian wolves was a solution looking for a problem. The inability to clearly define the problem only made the advancement of this "solution" that much easier. The real science is special interest politics.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
This thread had degenerated into a pissing match!



I continue to find interesting information being posted here. But, one does have to step around the puddles /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
And if it were such a match, it'd be really funny if I won, cuz girls don't usually pee standing up /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
It's not unreasonable, right. But I have a feeling that no matter what I show you, you'll find something wrong with it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif- I run into people all the time that are so hell-bent on being right or making me wrong, they won't hear anything other than what they want. There are links above in addition to yours. I don't have time to do all the copy and paste research for you. If you are really interested in comparing, then do so, I'm not interested in pasting more and more info on this thread for you. I looked at your link and don't know what more you want, I can't physically get a native wolf, then a "re"introduced wolf and give them to you to compare and contrast. What I know is that there are many Idahoans who had experience with the native breed; they also see what the intro wolves are and what they do- Don't know what else to tell ya... Perhaps we should both look at it this way: We each see it the way we see it and know what we know, if we don't share our perception exactly, then so be it. 'Tis what it is /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
Back
Top