Dear DNS, not that I have ever disagreed with any of your posts, but I believe you are in error about the native Idaho wolf vs the Canadian wolf. Here is an article on the native vs the invasive Mackenzie Valley wolf:
http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/...n-gray-wolves/
My friends that grew up here in Idaho and have lived here for over 70 years also disagree that the Canadian gray wolf is native to this area. They don't read many fancy books, they do read, but they lived and watched the native wolf that did not bother their livestock.
Okay, so you are playing the curmudgeon card? The, "We're old and don't read no fancy books because we done lived it" card? I am sorry if my citation of relevant scientific information is troubling for you, but what we are discussing does come down to biology. What I stated does not cast any doubts on the long term observations of old timers. I am not even sure why you are trying to set up this dichotomy of conflict, but your deed is misplaced. You seem to want to challenge me on statements I didn't make and that just does not make any sense.
Where am I in error? Are you suggesting that the Canadian Wolf isn't actually a Gray Wolf or are you suggesting that the wolf native to Idaho isn't a Gray Wolf? They are both Gray Wolves, the same species.
Maybe you are suggesting that I stated that the Canadian Gray Wolf was indiginous? I did not state this.
You cannot make the same claims about these monster Canadian wolves that are wiping out the elk herds here in northern Idaho.
I did not make any such claims.
So specifically what did I state that was in error? The only claims that I made were that the Red Wolf was never in Idaho as the indigenous wolf species and that the indigenous species was the Gray Wolf and the predominant subspecies of Idaho Gray Wolf was different from the introduced Canadian subspecies.
Nothing in the blog you posted is contrary to statements I made. It does discuss differences between the wolves, but these are difference of subspecies members of the same species.
This truly is an invasive and dangerous species that is also spreading parasitic disease that is a known danger to people. All of this information was available to our govn't before they ever placed one of these interlopers in the lower 48.
I never commented one way or the other that the Canadian Gray Wolf was invasive or dangerous or what information the government did or did not have, but I think I have found your problem. You don't seem to have a working understanding between the differences of what constitutes a species versus what consitutes a subspecies and so are using the terminology incorrectly which is causing confusion for you. The Gray Wolf and Red Wolf are different species, but the native Idaho Gray Wolf and the Canadian Gray Wolf are the same species, but different subspecies (see my post above). So your statement that the introduced wolves are a truly invasive species isn't exactly correct because what was introduced wasn't a different species, but a different subspecies.
Truly invasive? That isn't exactly right. They were fairly well isolated (hence the subspecies designation) before we forced their invasion by transporting them to a new region. Now they are simply expanding to fill the void and right or wrong, this is what was hoped for via the relocation program. They are invasive, but only because we made it possible for them to do so. This is yet another example of humans trying to manage nature and failing to comprehend the consequences of the course nature will take.
Without geting into all the fancy distinctions, a species is a naturally interbreeding population. A subspecies is an isolated (usually by geography) sub group within a given population.
