ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
I found this old quote of mine while going through AW's wall early this morning. I found it ironic, because I had posted this right before the 2011-2012 wolf hunting season was just about to start. Now that it's almost over (Idaho's Lolo and Selway zones are still open until June), I will post what I have said giving credence to the fact that these hunts have done nothing to the overall wolf population. Source is credit to basic math skills and overall common sense.
This article is straight out of the DOW Magazine Spring 2006 Edition: i52.tinypic.com/oji6ub.jpg - note the numbers and get ready for your math test!
According to this article posted by Defenders of Wildlife there were 69 pups born in Yellowstone in 2005. Doug Smith, who is a beaver biologist, stated (and still does) that there were 118 wolves in Yellowstone at the end of 2005 (which would represent the total) after the 47 pups died (only 22 survived). This is also the lowest number published. In 2003 it showed 174 wolves and in 2008 showed 124 wolves. So how do 118 wolves produce 69 pups when supposedly only the top two, the "alpha pair" breed? We all know this is a myth, those terms are long outdated. Even so, the top breeding pair aren't the only ones to mate and bear young. Read on.
Here is where your math skills come into play:
118 divided by 47 = 2.5
2.5 times 47 = 118
Just to double check the math! We now found out that each wolf that existed in Yellowstone Park in 2005 as stated by Yellowstone's beaver biologist Doug Smith produced 2.5 more wolves for a total increase of population of over 63% before the dead loss occurred. Add the number of wolves present plus the pups born gives a new running total of 187 wolves before dead loss. Then take 118 (the current number stated) and divide it by 187 (the total wolves after pups are born) to give you that 63% increase.
I know I probably lost half of you guys already but let me continue to get to my point. It is said that wolves only produced at the rate of 28% annually. Well what the United States Fish and Wildlife Services says is close but still fudging numbers. By all accounts 28% is a minimum annual increase (we all know how they like to take minimum numbers and sweep the rest under the rug). We all knew that wolves would kill each over territorial disputes but didn't know to what extent. Dr. Charles Kay presented those numbers last year at a private event in Idaho. He stated that wolves kill each other at the rate of 30% annually in what biologists call intraspecific aggression. So now that takes our 63% growth rate down to just 33% after death amongst fellow wolves (63-30=33).
Next we find an article written in 2009 published by the Yellowstone National Park Service. Since Doug Smith was still head biologist in 2009 these are his numbers once again: www.yellowstone.co/wolves.htm
At the bottom are some real interesting figures, which are MINIMUM number of wolves for the tri-state area (in 2009).
Idaho: 843
Montana: 524
Wyoming: 320
Total (113 Breeding Pairs): 1687
Next question: how many wolves AT MINIMUM do we now have in the tri-state area using Doug Smith's numbers and simple math?
Oh, hell, I can't wait.
In 2009 we had 1687 live wolves reproducing at the rate of 33%. So, 1687 wolves times 33% or .33 = 556.71, or 557 (rounded, of course) new wolves for a new running total of at minimum 2244 wolves at the end of the 2010 season. That means we start 2011 with 2244 wolves. Once again take 2244 times 33% or .33 and you now get 741 new wolves to add to the equation. That leaves you in 2011 with 2985 wolves MINIMUM in the tri state area. Always remember that these are MINIMUM conservative ESTIMATES, as they already take into effect mortality rates!
The Montana season hunting quota was 220 wolves. Idaho had no set quota for certain zones, but in some zones there were. At the end of the 2011-2012 season, 41,000 tags were sold and hunters were only able to bag 542 wolves. That's less than 1% of a success rate. Montana's quota was NOT filled, it ended at 166 and Idaho is, for the moment, at 376.
Even if Montana was able to fill their quota and Idaho was able to kill 400 wolves statewide, the minimum population of 2985 wolves will produce 973 new wolves in 2012. People need to be constantly reminded of is that these quota numbers won't do a damn thing to the population. Why do people think Dr. Mech wrote an article on proposing poison, trapping, and hunting during mating season? There needs to be open season on wolves year round to actually make a dent in the population. Canadians have been managing wolves for over 200 years. The Idaho Fish and Game Department have only been doing it for the past 3 years. Who do you think knows how to manage their wildlife better?
IDFG admitting they have NO clue how many wolves there are in their state:
[link broken] Part 1
i44.tinypic.com/24pgjmq.jpg Part 2
[link broken] Part 3
This article is straight out of the DOW Magazine Spring 2006 Edition: i52.tinypic.com/oji6ub.jpg - note the numbers and get ready for your math test!
According to this article posted by Defenders of Wildlife there were 69 pups born in Yellowstone in 2005. Doug Smith, who is a beaver biologist, stated (and still does) that there were 118 wolves in Yellowstone at the end of 2005 (which would represent the total) after the 47 pups died (only 22 survived). This is also the lowest number published. In 2003 it showed 174 wolves and in 2008 showed 124 wolves. So how do 118 wolves produce 69 pups when supposedly only the top two, the "alpha pair" breed? We all know this is a myth, those terms are long outdated. Even so, the top breeding pair aren't the only ones to mate and bear young. Read on.
Here is where your math skills come into play:
118 divided by 47 = 2.5
2.5 times 47 = 118
Just to double check the math! We now found out that each wolf that existed in Yellowstone Park in 2005 as stated by Yellowstone's beaver biologist Doug Smith produced 2.5 more wolves for a total increase of population of over 63% before the dead loss occurred. Add the number of wolves present plus the pups born gives a new running total of 187 wolves before dead loss. Then take 118 (the current number stated) and divide it by 187 (the total wolves after pups are born) to give you that 63% increase.
I know I probably lost half of you guys already but let me continue to get to my point. It is said that wolves only produced at the rate of 28% annually. Well what the United States Fish and Wildlife Services says is close but still fudging numbers. By all accounts 28% is a minimum annual increase (we all know how they like to take minimum numbers and sweep the rest under the rug). We all knew that wolves would kill each over territorial disputes but didn't know to what extent. Dr. Charles Kay presented those numbers last year at a private event in Idaho. He stated that wolves kill each other at the rate of 30% annually in what biologists call intraspecific aggression. So now that takes our 63% growth rate down to just 33% after death amongst fellow wolves (63-30=33).
Next we find an article written in 2009 published by the Yellowstone National Park Service. Since Doug Smith was still head biologist in 2009 these are his numbers once again: www.yellowstone.co/wolves.htm
At the bottom are some real interesting figures, which are MINIMUM number of wolves for the tri-state area (in 2009).
Idaho: 843
Montana: 524
Wyoming: 320
Total (113 Breeding Pairs): 1687
Next question: how many wolves AT MINIMUM do we now have in the tri-state area using Doug Smith's numbers and simple math?
Oh, hell, I can't wait.
In 2009 we had 1687 live wolves reproducing at the rate of 33%. So, 1687 wolves times 33% or .33 = 556.71, or 557 (rounded, of course) new wolves for a new running total of at minimum 2244 wolves at the end of the 2010 season. That means we start 2011 with 2244 wolves. Once again take 2244 times 33% or .33 and you now get 741 new wolves to add to the equation. That leaves you in 2011 with 2985 wolves MINIMUM in the tri state area. Always remember that these are MINIMUM conservative ESTIMATES, as they already take into effect mortality rates!
The Montana season hunting quota was 220 wolves. Idaho had no set quota for certain zones, but in some zones there were. At the end of the 2011-2012 season, 41,000 tags were sold and hunters were only able to bag 542 wolves. That's less than 1% of a success rate. Montana's quota was NOT filled, it ended at 166 and Idaho is, for the moment, at 376.
Even if Montana was able to fill their quota and Idaho was able to kill 400 wolves statewide, the minimum population of 2985 wolves will produce 973 new wolves in 2012. People need to be constantly reminded of is that these quota numbers won't do a damn thing to the population. Why do people think Dr. Mech wrote an article on proposing poison, trapping, and hunting during mating season? There needs to be open season on wolves year round to actually make a dent in the population. Canadians have been managing wolves for over 200 years. The Idaho Fish and Game Department have only been doing it for the past 3 years. Who do you think knows how to manage their wildlife better?
IDFG admitting they have NO clue how many wolves there are in their state:
[link broken] Part 1
i44.tinypic.com/24pgjmq.jpg Part 2
[link broken] Part 3
Gratuity Treasure Chest
Joining this tier, you gain access to a reserved extra content that are carefully crafted just for you.
Your subscription doesn't just support my art; it fuels it, allowing me to dedicate more time and resources to producing even more of the content you love. It's a partnership that propels this project forward.
Join me in this exclusive tier, and together, let's take this artistic adventure to new heights. Your appreciation fuels my passion.
$2/month
Animal Spotlight: Cassia Crossbill
No deviations currently exist of this animal!
About
Scientific name: Loxia sinesciuris
Common names: Cassia Crossbill, South Hills Crossbill
Conservation status: Data deficient
Geographic range: South Hills and Albion Mountains of southern Idaho
Fun facts
:bulletgreen: It is virtually impossible to distinguish from the Red Crossbill by sight alone.
:bulletblack: These birds are reproductively isolated with no geographic barrier, supporting speciation.
:bulletgreen: This species may already be facing extinction due to climate change threatening Lodgepole pine (food supply).
Loxia sinesciuris on eBird | Loxia sinesciuris on Wikipedia | Loxia
Animal Spotlight: Tricolored Bumblebee
:thumb167348366: :thumb251408719: :thumb540353411:
About
Scientific name: Bombus ternarius
Common names: Orange-Belted Bumblebee, Tricolored Bumblebee
Conservation status: Least Concern
Geographic range:
Fun facts
:bulletgreen: Ternarius refers to the number 3 - in this case, the bee's 3 colors (red, yellow, black).
:bulletblack: Nests are made in the ground and are lined with honeypots.
:bulletgreen: Before the introduction of the Honey Bee in North America, this species was the only bee producing honey.
Tricolored Bumblebee on Wikipedia | Tricolored Bumblebee on IUCN Red List | Tricolored Bumblebee on Bugguide.net
The Tricolored Bumbleb
Animal Spotlight: Loggerhead Sea Turtle
:thumb95674042:
About
Scientific name: Caretta caretta
Common names: Loggerhead turtle, Loggerhead
Conservation status: Vulnerable
Geographic range:
Fun Facts
:bulletgreen: The loggerhead sea turtle appears on the $1000 Colombian peso coin.
:bulletblack: After a female lays a clutch of four eggs, she will be quiescent for two to three years.
:bulletgreen: Molecular genetics confirm natural hybridization of loggerheads with Kemp's ridley sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and green sea turtles.
:bulletblack: Evidence is lacking, but it has been suggested that modern sea turtles descended from a LCA during the Cretaceous period - roughly 40 mi
Animal Spotlight: Blue Orchard Bee
:thumb168160138:
About
Scientific name: Osmia lignaria
Common names: Blue orchard bee, Orchard mason bee
Conservation status: Least Concern
Geographic range: One of 4,000 native bee species in North America. Two subspecies are recognized: O. l. propinqua (western) and O. l. lignaria (eastern).
Fun Facts
:bulletgreen: Brood cells towards the rear of the nest will develop into females, while the ones closer to the entrance will become males.
:bulletblack: This bee will not attack to defend itself - the stinger is actually an egg guide.
:bulletgreen: Mason bees do not produce honey.
:bulletblack: Because of its native status, this is a popular
Featured in Groups
© 2012 - 2024 Anti-Wolf
Comments15
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
As someone who sucks at math, I'd like to say thank you for doing some number crunching and sharing with us. You know, the population information doesn't surprise me much, but I'm impressed by how many permits they sold compared to how many wolves were shot. More anti-hunting people need to see those numbers, because they seem to think hunters have a 99-100% success rate.