PDA

View Full Version : Wolves are causing big problems in Idaho.


Big Bill
March 11, 2009, 09:31 PM
All of these comments were made by Idaho hunters.
___________________________________________

Two of my sons were hunting above the town of Sunbean in Idaho
The older was chased by a Wolf yesterday while returning to his
car the other went to help out as the wolf turn and ran into the woods.
Both boys and one wife returned home later that day.

The experience is a heads up for those who are planing on being in the Mountains near Stanley or near the Sunbean dredge.

--------------------------------------------------

A friend of mine had a similar experience while bow hunting above Lowman in the Bear Valley area. Was cow calling in early am trying to coax a bull into answering, but called in a half dozen wolves instead. Nomad, had it been me I'd have killed some dogs.

-------------------------------------------------

my friend at work was packing out his Elk from that area last month.
Covered in blood an 100lbs of meat on his back he turned and had 4 wolves following him.

His just stood still facing them and they slowly wandered off. Crazy eh?

--------------------------------------------------

Its a good thing to remember to keep your dogs and small kids close if your camping this year. I have talked to folks in Cascade and Idaho City that have spotted them, and by the time they have hold of Fido it will be too late. My kids are young and always have a loud whistle around their neck if we are out in the woods. I don't know if that would spook a wolf, but it would get me running and I carry a slightly louder noisemaker.

---------------------------------------------------

These are some of the comments some of my friends have made concerning wolves here in Idaho. So, please don't tell me wolves aren't dangerous.

Here is a comment about specific places where elk and deer used to be abundant:

The area around Yellow Pine was a bust. We found some older deer and elk sign but much more, and more recent, wolf tracks. None of the many hunters we talked to had seen any elk or deer, but those tent camping reported howling wolves each night.

http://www.boiseshooters.com/index.php

So, if you're planning a trip into Idaho's back country, you better be packin heat!

---------------------------------------------------

freakintoguns
March 11, 2009, 09:42 PM
this shoudl bea warning to anyone camping anywhere. this weird weather we've been havign nationwide is gonna cause soem weird things with animals

Buzzcook
March 11, 2009, 10:01 PM
Anecdotal evidence is not quite on the same level as scientific evidence. If I'm supposed to live in fear I need something concrete to go on.

Big Bill
March 11, 2009, 10:21 PM
Anecdotal evidence is not quite on the same level as scientific evidence. If I'm supposed to live in fear I need something concrete to go on.I'll take you out to Yellow Pine and let you tent camp for a week and gather all the scientific evidence you want. How would that be? :rolleyes:

sasquatch
March 11, 2009, 10:38 PM
Wolves have been hammering the deer herds in the Methow Valley for the past 3-4 years, and these idiots think it's "great news" that the wolves are back.

http://www.conservationnw.org/wildlife-habitat/possible-wolves-in-the-methow

fbrown333@suddenlink
March 11, 2009, 10:55 PM
Yes and they will go on thinking it is great until they(wolves) start bringing down more live stock and then start on the human species :rolleyes: . I am from the Pacific North West, I can tell you that they are nothing to mess around with. The packs of wild dogs/yotes was bad enough. Ever been chased by wild dogs? It's not very much fun,(still got the scars) thank god my dad had a rifle that day.
My dad has said that the tally around where he hunts was real low this year and several hunters stated hearing wolves.

Water-Man
March 11, 2009, 11:10 PM
That would be great Big Bill. Are you paying for the trip?

Nnobby45
March 11, 2009, 11:22 PM
In HS, our biology teacher (professor, since he also taught college), challenged the class to provide one DOCUMENTED case of a wolf attack on a human in N. America. We were unable to provide a single case.

Of course, 1962 was a ways back.:D

Now days one has tremendous resources at his fingertips in the computer age for doing research.

I did see a documentory (NG channel?) where a man was killed in Alaska, and it was kind of a 50/50 toss up as to whether he was killed by a bear or wolves. Both types of animals were known to feed at their local garbage dump at the research site, and both footprints were found near his body.


There was, however, another documented instance of a hunter being attacked in another area. That fellow survived.

If you're familiar with the National Geographic channel, you know there's no length to which they won't go to scientifically analyze the reason why animals attack humans--and always blame the humans. Get's comical at times. I guess there's no such thing as amimals being the predators and humans sometimes the prey.


I'm personally skeptical of stories about wolf attacks, or of wolves bothering humans in the lower 48. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have concerns if there were wolves around--I'd be as nervous as anyone else. I'd be more concerned if there were grizzlies or even black bear in the neighborhood.

Wolves following a hunter while packing out meat after a kill? Why? The pack would have the gut pile to themselves as well as the rest of the elk or deer not immediately packed out. A rifle shot during hunting season is a dinner bell for wolves or Grizzly in some places. The wolves aren't going to take your elk from you until you're gone. Not necessarily so with the Grizzly.

Big Bill
March 11, 2009, 11:36 PM
That would be great Big Bill. Are you paying for the trip?NOT for you Water-Man! But, this fall I could probably drive up to Washington; and pick up Buzz; and drop him off in the Big creek wildernes area. But, I just don't know how soon I could get back to pick him up and take him home.

BTW Buzz! Are you in the Navy by chance? I've got a son down in Longview, maybe you could just catch a ride with him next time he comes home. :)

togojeff
March 12, 2009, 12:55 AM
"In HS, our biology teacher (professor, since he also taught college), challenged the class to provide one DOCUMENTED case of a wolf attack on a human in N. America. We were unable to provide a single case.

Of course, 1962 was a ways back."


It's a little different nowadays as you said Nnobby45.

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005119633

Buzzcook
March 12, 2009, 01:12 AM
Except for a couple people in the Air Force my family was all Army, untill my brother and I opted out. I was born on an Army base in Japan and that's as close to military service as I got.

I wish I could come camping out in the Idaho, heck anywhere. But I'll have to pass. Besides I'm not a scientist either, so if I end up as wolf poop it won't mean much;)

Bill I remember when wolves were reintroduced back in the eighties. People started crying wolf then and they pretty much didn't stop no matter what. Most of the stories about depredation by wolves turned out to be just that, stories.
So here we are 30 years later and people are still crying wolf. I'm not saying you don't have a valid argument, it's just that there have been so many false alarms that I need more than stories. Give me a link that ends in .gov or .edu, that's all I ask.

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 01:25 AM
Wolves have been hammering the deer herds in the Methow Valley for the past 3-4 years, and these idiots think it's "great news" that the wolves are back.
Is there a deer shortage now?
I'll take you out to Yellow Pine and let you tent camp for a week and gather all the scientific evidence you want. How would that be?
Sounds like fun. When was the last time you heard a factual account of wolves harming humans...and I don't mean more anecdotes from people with a set agenda like the ones in the OP.

Buzzcook
March 12, 2009, 01:47 AM
http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/09/18/news/wyoming/d613a2b4f92b4c65872574c70083d024.txt


The Northern Rockies gray wolf population has apparently shrunk for the first time in over a decade, and officials say they're not sure why.

At the start of 2008, there were an estimated 1,513 gray wolves living in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, and biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had predicted by mid-year there would be more than 2,000.

The population has been growing for years by a fairly reliable 24 percent annually.

But the mid-year census numbers are in, and instead of growth, Fish and Wildlife officials say wolf numbers have declined to an estimated 1,455, or about 350 fewer than had been anticipated.

Ed Bangs, the federal gray wolf recovery coordinator, cautioned the mid-year counts represent just a "best guess" number, and are not as reliable as the end-of-year figures.

Another site said the 24% growth number was old and population growth had been slowing over the last few years.

But I'd like to point out that 1,513 figure, that's only a couple hundred more animals than our yearly harvest of black bears in Washington. Over three big states that is. So even though the population is spread pretty wide it is also spread pretty thin, relative to other top predators.
For example Oregon has an estimated 5100 cougars.
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cougar/ Just as an aside I find the thought of being near a full sized mountain lion in the woods to be much scarier than a wolf.

hogdogs
March 12, 2009, 01:52 AM
PBP,
I don't see you in this section posting often so I will fill yer desire to see accounts of real encounters and/or attacks...
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=44d94f6e-11cd-46b6-84c4-3f48d8df838b
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/11/01/wolf-verdict.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/21/bc-wolf-attack.html
A rather long but detailed "official" summary of attacks...
http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/techb13_full.pdf
This should tide you over for a while...
But here are some livestock attacks...
http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A213125
http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2007/05/31/commodities/livestock/lvstk76.txt
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles02/wolf_attacks.htm
Brent

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 01:57 AM
A couple more anecdotal stories with no witnesses and another story where the experts do not believe it was awolf at all but "witnesses" say no bears where seen in the area. Another case of anecdotes and circumstance. Not much in the way of evidence there. In fact the one story even points out that "if" the story is true it is the first such account of humans being killed by healthy wolves. Nothingthat would survive any level of unbiased scrutiny at all.

hogdogs
March 12, 2009, 02:19 AM
So my tales backed by photos of hogs causing injury to humans and dogs are likely more unbelievable to you I reckon since most folks KNOW piggies are timid little critters unable to cause injury and/or death to humans or even our hunting dogs especially those bulldogs we use?
I am way too far away from their habitat to have first hand knowledge of the wolf attacks but know of many ranchers who battle the financial losses of calving season. Heck, coyotes, while not normally attacking humans, are getting thick around here and I have personally seen many goat and calf kills and reduction of turkey populations in the last few years.
Brent

Double Naught Spy
March 12, 2009, 07:28 AM
You are still significantly more likely to be shot by a fellow hunter than you are to be attacked by a bear, mountain lion, and wolf, combined.

There is a reason the wilderness is called the wilderness. It isn't Disneyland.

If you are out in the woods and calling in prey species to kill, expect to call in carnivores. D'uh!

I did like the stories in the OP. The first three stories by "hunters" were all secondhand accounts - not even good anecdotes. The fourth was just a tale of what a guy does to keep his family safe. The fifth story is just a story about nature. Apparently the guy isn't happy about having some competition.

Don't worry too much about the wolves killing off the deer herds. They are just getting used to the predatory pressures again and are learning to respond accordingly, as in Wisconsin....
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/442552

What I want to know is why folks aren't worried about these oh-so aggressive deer? They attack hunters, hikers, campers, and townfolk, etc. every year. This is one of the more under-reported types of events. Think of the shame about being a big old tough hunter and being chased down by Bambi's folks? Well, it isn't just the hunters who are at risk...:rolleyes:
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20090217/news/302179996

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AT&p_theme=at&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB7C4B1B6A68D42&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9405E6DD133FE533A25751C1A9649D94679FD7CF (nice historic accounting)

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B15FC3F5A11728DDDAF0894D9415B898FF1D3

And some deer don't like to be shot by hunters...
http://www.startribune.com/error/?path=%2Fnation&id=35323749

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5740499,00.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9502EFD9143FE533A25754C1A9679D94659FD7CF

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/deer-delivers-severe-beating-to-deer-hunter-14089820.html

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SJ&s_site=mercurynews&p_multi=SJ&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB729C506F91A84&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PD&s_site=twincities&p_multi=SP&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB5E4348FF48497&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

I am not sure there isn't more danger from deer than there is from wolves. ;)

P97
March 12, 2009, 07:53 AM
When wild carnivores lose fear of people they become dangerous. When they are hungry, you're just a meal to them. When supposedly domesticated dogs like Rottweilers and Pit Bulls turn on people and sometimes kill them, there is no reason to believe a Wolf won't. Wild Carnivores are like guns. Always treat them like they are loaded.

Art Eatman
March 12, 2009, 09:11 AM
When a state's wolf population grows from 30 to 800 as was reported and then cited in a thread here, what didn't happen in 1962 is not really germane. Sure, odds are important, but the results of a high-odds event are much more important. Folks win lotteries, right? They say the Florida lottery's odds run some 14 million to one, against. Some lotteries, I don't want to win...

It ain't the odds so much as it is the results.

No one anecdote is evidence. But when you add up anecdotes over a period of years and they're consistent, the new odds are that you'd better pay attention.

Question: Why would a group of several wolves NOT attack a human, when a group of feral dogs will? (Some will try the, "But, Art, they learned that by being raised around humans." That merely shows ignorance about feral dogs. They're born and raised in the boonies as well as around people.)

I live in the middle of a fair amount of cougar poop. They're around, and there have been four attacks up in Big Bend National Park. They've followed hikers on private land away from the park. But I don't live in fear of cougars. I am, however, judicious about where I walk and what I carry with me.

I figure that if I turn on any predatory animal and do the yell-and-mock-charge thing, he better leave. If he stands his ground and shows any hostility, the odds are that he ain't leaving. Ever. I'll amble on about my business. My well-being is a lot more important to me than that of any critter on four legs--and a fair number of two-legs, for that matter. :)

I dunno. Just like with people, I judge animals on their behavior. I've been around animals for danged near seventy years. Tame, feral and wild. I trust my judgement a heckuva lot more than I do that of some Willie-off-the-pickle-boat.

Bottom line: Some knowledge is best gained vicariously, not first-hand.

Creature
March 12, 2009, 09:29 AM
Bottom line: Some knowledge is best gained vicariously, not first-hand.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/2/2c/ElectricityTest.jpg/200px-ElectricityTest.jpg

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 09:57 AM
No one anecdote is evidence. But when you add up anecdotes over a period of years and they're consistent, the new odds are that you'd better pay attention.
By that logic the Lochness Monster, Bigfoot, and little green men probing rednecks are all valid stories. Anecdotes are just that...anecdotes. No amount of anecdotes constitute fact. Especially not regarding subject where certain groups of people have such strong beliefs and prejudices.

You can stack as much manure as you like in a pile. At no point does it ever turn into ice cream. It is just a bigger pile of crap.

Repeated common experiences can be reason to look into a situation, but when the facts do not back up the stories you have to go with the facts. In the case of wolves, certain people want to believe what they want to believe and do not bother themselves with the facts.

PS: Of the things I mentioned, only bigfoot is real. :)

Creature
March 12, 2009, 10:01 AM
No amount of anecdotes constitute fact.

http://www.counterknowledge.com/images/flat_earth.jpg

Willis
March 12, 2009, 11:50 AM
Hi Big Bill, I don’t know about you, but I get tired of the opinions of people that don’t have wolves in their back yard telling me how good the wolves are. I think we need to reintroduce the wolves to the mountains of Southern CA or around NY. Maybe our new leader would like some around Chicago. We had two dogs killed not far from my house last weekend. I know many people that have lost animals to wolves. No a human has not been killed YET. If people want wolves, they need to keep them around their house.

Willis

L_Killkenny
March 12, 2009, 12:19 PM
Is it it problem? Not necessarily so.

Farmers think one deer in their field is a problem. Insurance companies believe one car/deer accident is a problem. Cattlemen think one mountain lion is a problem. Deer hunters think one wolf is a problem. Chicken farmers think one weasel is a problem. City dwellers think one coon in their trash is a problem. People with cedar shake shingles think one squirrel is a problem. Etc, Etc, Etc.

Are we suppose to go out and kill off every critter that causes an issue for someone? Heck no. Where do we stop. 1500-2000 wolves in an area the size of Montana, Wy. and Idaho is not a problem. 5 times that number may not even be a problem. I'm not smart enough to know and I don't live their. But it will take more than a 1/2 dozen, or 20, or even 100 reports like the ones stated here to have me believe it's a problem.

hogdogs
March 12, 2009, 12:26 PM
killkenny, What must be taken into account over the number in a state the size of montana is poulation density in critical areas.

One drunk driver on the desolate back woods road at 4 am is not so much a problem as one drunk driver in a school zone 15 minutes after final bell...

The problem wolves present me is knowing I am gonna have to listen to Mrs.hogdogs griping at rising beef prices as these wolves continue to prey on the beef industry...
Brent

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 01:02 PM
The problem wolves present me is knowing I am gonna have to listen to Mrs.hogdogs griping at rising beef prices as these wolves continue to prey on the beef industry...
She should be mad at the CEO's of the beef companies for lying to inflate beef prices then because all the studies have shown no noticeable impact on herds. In fact the last study I saw said that herds, based on tax information and gathered statistics, lost animals at a rate no higher than before wolves were reintroduced. In fact it was often less.

If you normally lose 30 head a year to disease, weather, and age before wolves and then you lose 10 head to wolves after their introduction but only lose 18 to disease, weather, and age why is that somehow a tragedy? You still lost the same number (or less) of cattle, you just lost them in different ways. For some reason the ranchers love to scream about losing an animal to a wolf, but they completely neglect to mention that it has not had any effect on their overall losses.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 01:06 PM
WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS

By T. R. Mader, Research Division

It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf has ever attacked a human on this continent. In fact, many say such attacks have never occurred in North America.

History states otherwise. Although attacks on humans are uncommon, they have occurred on this continent, both in the early years of settlement and more recently. Here is one report:

“NEW ROCKFORD, DAK, March 7 - The news has just reached here that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time. Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota." (Saint Paul Daily Globe, March 8, 1888)

Here an account is reported which included an eyewitness and the family name. Some have reasoned the wolves were rabid. That is unlikely as these animals were functioning as a pack. A rabid wolf is a loner. Our research has never found a single historical account of packs of rabid wolves on this continent. Individual animals are the norm. Further, accounts of rabid (hydrophobic) animals were common in that day and were reported as such.

The winters of 1886-1888 were very harsh. Many western ranchers went broke during these years. The harsh winter could have been a factor in the attack.

Noted naturalists documented wolf attacks on humans. John James Audubon, of whom the Audubon Society is named, reported an attack involving 2 Negroes. He records that the men were traveling through a part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in winter. Due to the wild animals in the area the men carried axes on their shoulders as a precaution. While traveling through a heavily forested area, they were attacked by a pack of wolves. Using their axes, they attempted to fight off the wolves. Both men were knocked to the ground and severely wounded. One man was killed. The other dropped his axe and escaped up a tree. There he spent the night. The next morning the man climbed down from the tree. The bones of his friend lay scattered on the snow. Three wolves lay dead. He gathered up the axes and returned home with the news of the event. This incident occurred about 1830. (Audubon, J.J., and Bachman, J.; The Quadrupeds of North America, 3 volumes. New York, 1851 - 1854)

George Bird Grinnell investigated several reported wolf attacks on humans. He dismissed many reports for lack of evidence. Grinnell did verify one attack.

This occurrence was in northwestern Colorado. An eighteen-year-old girl went out at dusk to bring in some milk cows. She saw a gray wolf on a hill as she went out for the cows. She shouted at the wolf to scare it away and it did not move. She then threw a stone at it to frighten it away. The animal snarled at her shouting and attacked her when she threw the stone at it. The wolf grabbed the girl by the shoulder, threw her to the ground and bit her severely on the arms and legs. She screamed and her brother, who was nearby and armed with a gun, responded to the scene of the attack and killed the wolf. The wolf was a healthy young animal, barely full grown. Grinnell met this girl and examined her. She carried several scars from the attack. This attack occurred in summer about 1881. (Grinnell, G.B.; Trail and Campfire - Wolves and Wolf Nature, New York, 1897)

In 1942, Michael Dusiak, section foreman for the Canadian Pacific Railway, was attacked by a wolf while patrolling a section of track on a speeder (small 4-wheeled open railroad car). Dusiak relates, "It happened so fast and as it was still very dark, I thought an engine had hit me first. After getting up from out of the snow very quickly, I saw the wolf which was about fifty feet away from me and it was coming towards me, I grabbed the two axes (tools on the speeder), one in each hand and hit the wolf as he jumped at me right in the belly and in doing so lost one axe. Then the wolf started to circle me and got so close to me at times that I hit him with the head of the axe and it was only the wielding of the axe that kept him from me. All this time he was growling and gnashing his teeth. Then he would stop circling me and jump at me and I would hit him with the head of the axe. This happened five times and he kept edging me closer to the woods which was about 70 feet away. We fought this way for about fifteen minutes and I fought to stay out in the open close to the track. I hit him quite often as he came at me very fast and quick and I was trying to hit him a solid blow in the head for I knew if once he got me down it would be my finish. Then in the course of the fight he got me over onto the north side of the track and we fought there for about another ten minutes. Then a west bound train came along travelling about thirty miles an hour and stopped about half a train length west of us and backed up to where we were fighting. The engineer, fireman and brakeman came off the engine armed with picks and other tools, and killed the wolf."

It should be noted that this wolf was skinned and inspected by an Investigator Crichton, a Conservation Officer. His assessment was that the animal was a young healthy wolf in good condition although it appeared lean. ("A Record of Timber Wolf Attacking a Man," JOURNAL OF MAMMOLOGY, Vol. 28, No. 3, August 1947)

Common Man Institute, in cooperation with Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, has done extensive research on wolves and their history for several years. We have gathered evidence on wolf attacks which occurred in North America.

A forester employed by the Province of British Colombia was checking some timber for possible harvest in the 1980s. He was met by a small pack of three wolves. The forester yelled at the wolves to frighten them away. Instead, the wolves came towards him in a threatening manner and he was forced to retreat and climb a nearby tree for safety. The wolves remained at the base of the tree. The forester had a portable radio, but was unable to contact his base, due to distance, until evening. When the call for help came in, two Conservation Officers with the Ministry of Environment were flown to the area by floatplane to rescue the treed forester.

When the Conservation Officers arrived, the forester was still in the tree and one wolf, the apparent leader of the pack, was still at the base of the tree. The officers, armed with shotguns, shot at the wolf and missed. The wolf ran for cover and then started circling and howling near the two officers. After a couple missed shots, the wolf was finally shot and killed.

The wolf tested negative for rabies. It appeared healthy in every respect, but was very lean. The Conservation Officers felt the attack was caused by hunger. (Taped Interviews and a photo of the wolf on file at Abundant Wildlife Society of North America.)

This is but one example from British Colombia. Wolves overran Vancouver Island in the 1980s. Attacks became so common that articles were published in Canadian magazines documenting such attacks. (Copies available upon request.)

Wolf Attacks on humans have occurred in national parks, too. In August 1987, a sixteen-year-old girl was bitten by a wild wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. The girl was camping in the park with a youth group and shined a flashlight at the wolf. The wolf reacted to the light by biting the girl on the arm. That bite was not hard and due to the thick sweater and sweatshirt the girl was wearing, she sustained two scratch marks on her arm. The wolf was shot by Natural Resources personnel and tested negative for rabies. (Interview with Ron Tozer, Park Naturalist for Algonquin Provincial Park, 7/25/88.)

Well-known wolf biologist Dr. David Mech took issue with this attack stating it couldn't really be considered an authentic attack since the girl wasn't injured more severely. It was exactly nine years when such an attack would take place.

Algonquin Provincial Park is one of several areas where people are encouraged to "howl" at the wolves in hopes of a response from the wild wolves in the area. In August, 1996, the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were spending a nine-day family vacation in Algonquin and joined a group of Scouts in "howling" at the wolves. They were answered by the howl of a solitary wolf.

That night the Delventhals decided to sleep out under the stars. Young Zachariah was dreaming when he suddenly felt excruciating pain in his face. A lone wolf had bit him in the face and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach screamed and Tracy, Zach's Mother, raced to his side and picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from Zach's wounds.

The wolf stood menacingly less than a yard away. Tracy yelled at her husband, Thom, who leapt from his sleeping bag and charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged at Tracy and Zach. The charges were repeated. Finally the wolf left. Thom turned a flashlight on 11-year-old Zach and gasped "Oh, my God!" "The boy's face had been ripped open. His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing." Zach was taken to a hospital in Toronto where a plastic surgeon performed four hours of reconstructive surgery. Zach received more than 80 stitches in his face.

Canadian officials baited the Delventhals' campsite and captured and destroyed a 60-lb wild male wolf. No further attacks have occurred since. (Cook, Kathy; "Night of the Wolf" READER'S DIGEST, July 1997, pp. 114-119.)

Humans have been attacked by wolves in Alaska. The late David Tobuk carried scars on his face from a wolf attack on him as a small child. The incident occurred around the turn of the century in interior Alaska. David was playing in his village near a river. An old wolf came into the village and bit David in the face and started to carry him off. Other Eskimos saw the wolf dragging the child off and started yelling and screaming. The wolf dropped the child and was shot by an old Eskimo trapper who had a gun. (Interview with Frank Tobuk, brother, Bettles, Alaska, December 1988.)

Paul Tritt, an Athabascan Indian, was attacked by a lone wolf while working a trap line. Paul was setting a snare, looked up and saw a wolf lunging at him. He threw his arm up in front of his face and it was bitten severely by the wolf. A struggle ensued. Tritt was able to get to his sled, grab a gun and kill the wolf. Nathaniel Frank, a companion, helped Tritt wash the wound with warm water. Frank took Tritt, via dog sled, to Fort Yukon to see a doctor. The arm healed, but Tritt never regained full use of it. Several years later, the arm developed problems and had to be amputated. (Interview with Paul Tritt, Venetie, Alaska, November, 1988)

Two wolf attacks on humans occurred in 2000.

Icy Bay, Alaska - Six-year-old John Stenglein and a nine-year-old friend were playing outside his family's trailer at a logging camp when a wild wolf came out of the woods towards the boys. The boys ran and the wolf attacked young Stenglein from the back, biting him on the back and buttocks. Adults, hearing the boy's screams, came and chased the wolf away. The wolf returned a few moments later and was shot. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) officials, the wolf was a healthy wild wolf that apparently attacked without provocation. The boy was flown to Yakutat and recieved stitches there for his wounds. Later, however, the bites became infected and the boy had to be hospitalized. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.)

Vargas Island, British Colombia - University student, Scott Langevin, 23, was on a kayak trip with friends. They camped out on a beach and, about 1 AM, Langevin awoke with something pulling on his sleeping bag. He looked out and came face to face with a wild wolf. Langevin yelled at the wolf and it attacked, biting him on the hand. Langevin attempted to force the wolf toward a nearby campfire, but as he turned, the wolf jumped on his back and started biting him on the back of his head. Friends, hearing his yells, came to his aid and scared the wolf away. Fifty (50) stitches were required to close the wound on Langevin's head. British Colombia Ministry of Enviroment officials speculate the reason for the attack was due to the wolves occasionally being fed by humans although there was no evidence that Langevin or any of his party fed these animals. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.)

This is but a brief summary of a few verifiable accounts of attacks on humans by healthy wild wolves in North American History.

Biologists tell us that the wolves of Asia and North America are one and the same species. Wolf attacks are common in many parts of Asia.

The government of India reported more than 100 deaths attributable to wolves in one year during the eighties. (Associated Press, 1985) This author recalls a news report in 1990 in which Iran reported deaths from attacks by wolves.

Rashid Jamsheed, a U.S. trained biologist, was the game director for Iran. He wrote a book entitled "Big Game Animals of Iran (Persia)." In it he made several references to wolf attacks on humans. Jamsheed says that for a millennia people have reported wolves attacking and killing humans. In winter, when starving wolves grow bold, they have been known to enter towns and kill people in daylight on the streets. Apparently, in Iran, there are many cases of wolves running off with small children. There is also a story of a mounted and armed policeman (gendarme) being followed by 3 wolves. In time he had to get off his horse to attend to nature’s call, leaving his rifle in the scabbard. A later reconstruction at the scene of the gnawed bones and wolf tracks indicated that the horse had bolted and left the man defenseless, whereupon he was killed and eaten.

A Russian Linguist, Will Graves, provided our organization with reports of wolves killing Russian people in many areas of that country. Reports indicate some of the wolves were diseased while others appeared healthy. (Reports on file and available upon request.)

Reports have also come from rural China. The official Zinhua News Agency reported that a peasant woman, Wu Jing, snatched her two daughters from the jaws of a wolf and wrestled with the animal until rescuers arrived. Wu slashed at the wolf with a sickle and it dropped one daughter, but grabbed her sister. It was then Wu wrestled with the animal until herdsmen came and drove the beast away. This incident occurred near Shenyang City, about 380 miles northeast of Beijing. (Chronicle Features, 1992)

See next post for balance of article...

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 01:08 PM
Continued...

The question arises: "Why so many attacks in Asia and so few in North America?"

Two factors must be considered:

1. The Philosophy of Conservation - Our forefathers always believed that they had the right and obligation to protect their livelihoods. Considerable distance was necessary between man and wolf for the wolf to survive.

2. Firearms - Inexpensive, efficient weapons gave man the upper hand in the protection of his livelihood and for the taking of wolves.

Milton P. Skinner in his book, “The Yellowstone Nature Book” (published 1924) wrote, "Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals... come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle..."

Skinner was correct. The areas of Asia where wolf attacks occur on humans are the same areas where the people have no firearms or other effective means of predator control.

But ... "Biologists claim there are no documented cases of healthy wild wolves attacking humans."

What they really mean is there are no "documented" cases by their criteria which excludes historical accounts. Here's an example.

Rabid wolves were a frightening experience in the early years due to their size and the seriousness of being bit, especially before a vaccine was developed. The bitten subject usually died a slow, miserable death. There are numerous accounts of rabid wolves and their activities. Early Army forts have medical records of rabid wolves coming into the posts and biting several people before being killed. Most of the people bitten died slow, horrible deaths. Additionally, early historical writings relate personal accounts. This author recalls one historical account telling of a man being tied to a tree and left to die because of his violent behavior with rabies after being bitten by a wolf. Such deaths left profound impressions on eyewitnesses of those events.

Dr. David Mech, USFWS wolf biologist, states there are no "documented" cases of rabid wolves below the fifty seventh latitude north (near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory). When asked what "documented" meant, he stated, "The head of the wolf must be removed, sent to a lab for testing and found to be rabid."

Those requirements for documentation negate all historical records!

As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, "There are no `documented' cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans." In order to be "documented" these unreasonable criteria must be met:

1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy.

2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life.

3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.

4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not considered attacks according to the biologists).

That is a "documented" attack.

Such criteria make it very difficult to document any historical account of a wolf attack on a human!

Biologists assume when a wolf attacks a human, that there must be something wrong with the wolf. It's either been in captivity or it's sick or whatever. They don't examine the evidence in an unbiased manner or use historical tests.

Historically, there are four reasons for wolf attacks on humans:

1. Disease such as rabies.

2. Extreme hunger.

3. Familiarity/Disposition - This is an either/or situation. Familiarity is the zoo setting, captive wolves, etc. Disposition is a particularly aggressive wolf which may not fear man as most wolves do.

4. In the heat of the chase and kill - This is where a hiker, trapper or whoever disturbs a fresh chase and kill by wolves. The person walks into the scene only to be attacked by the wolves.

It is our belief that a predator's fear of man is both instinctive and learned behavior. For example, wolves raised as pets or in zoos are well documented to attack and kill humans.

Alyshia Berzyck, of Minnesota, was attacked and killed by a wolf on a chain on June 3, 1989. The wolf tore up her kidney, liver and bit a hole through her aorta. One month later, on July 1, 1989, Peter Lemke, 5, lost 12 inches of his intestine and colon and suffered bites to his stomach, neck, legs, arms and back in another wolf attack in Kenyon, Minnesota. (Reports on file and available upon request.)

Zoos carry abundant records of wolf attacks on people, particularly children. The child climbs the enclosure fence to pet the "dog" and is attacked.

Zoos and domestic settings are unnatural in that they place man and wolf in close proximity and they become accustomed to each other. Consequently attacks occur.

Today predator control is very restricted in scope, and as a result, attacks on humans by predators are becoming more common. In recent years, healthy coyotes in Yellowstone Park have attacked humans. Similar attacks have occurred in the National Parks of Canada.

On January 14, 1991, a healthy mountain lion attacked and killed an eighteen-year-old high school senior, Scott Lancaster, in Idaho Springs, Colorado. The boy was jogging on a jogging path within the city limits of the town when the lion attacked and killed him. (Report on file at Abundant Wildlife Society of North America)

Copyright 1995, 2000, T. R. Mader, Research Division

Permission granted to disseminate and/or reprint if credit is given to the source.

OTHER REPORTED WOLF ATTACKS IN THE WILD

1. Comox Valley, British Colombia – 1986 - While driving a tractor, Jakob Knopp was followed by three wolves to his barn. They didn't leave, but kept snarling and showing their teeth. Knopp ran to his barn, retreived a rifle and had to shoot two of the three wolves before the third left the area.

2. George Williams, a retired sailor heard a commotion in his chicken coup one night. Thinking it was raccoons he took his single shot 22 rifle and headed for the coup. He rounded his fishing boat and trailer when a wolf leaped at him. He instinctively reacted with a snap shot with the rifle and dropped the wolf. A second wolf came at him before he could reload and George swung the rifle and struck the wolf across the head, stunning it. George retreated to the house until morning and found the wolf he had shot, the other was gone.

3. Clarence Lewis was picking berries on a logging road about a mile from Knopp's farm when he faced four wolves. Lewis yelled at them, two left and the other two advanced towards him. He took a branch and took a couple of threatening steps at them. They went into the brush and stayed close to him. Lewis faced the wolves and walked backward for two miles until he reached his car.

4. Don Hamilton, Conservation Officer at Nanaimo went to investigate a livestock killing by wolves. Wolves had killed a number of sheep in a pasture and Don went out to examine the kills. He came upon the scene and saw a large gray wolf feeding on one of the sheep. The wolf looked at him, growled and started running towards him at full speed. The wolf was over 100 yards away and never broke stride as it approached Don. At approximately 15 feet, Don shot the wolf to stop its attack. Don, who has many years experience with wolves, stated that he was convinced that the wolf was going to attack him because of its growling, snarling and aggressive behavior.

5. In 1947, a man was hunting cougar on Vancouver Island and was attacked by a pack of seven wolves. The man backed against a tree and shot the leader of the pack. The pack instantly tore the animal to shreds while the hunter made his escape.

6. Clarence Lindley was reportedly attacked by a 125-pound timber wolf. The incident occurred in early November, 1992 on the Figure 4 Ranch in Dunn County, North Dakota. Lindley was hunting horseback when the wolf attacked Lindley's horse causing it to jump and fall. Lindley was able to grab his saddle gun, a lever action Winchester 94, as the horse fell. The horse recovered its balance and Lindley found himself face to face with a snarling wolf. "My heart was pounding," said Lindley, "I could see those big teeth. He was less than five feet away... He meant business; he wasn't going to back off." Lindley fired his rifle at point blank range and killed the wolf with a shot to the neck. Lindley left the wolf since he couldn't get his horse close to it. On return to his hunting camp, his hunter friends failed to believe the account. They returned to the scene and skinned the wolf. The pelt was a flawless black and gray pelt measuring seven and a half feet from its feet to its snout. Its bottom teeth measured one and a half inches; top teeth - one and a quarter inches. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGF) confiscated the hide and head of the wolf and took it to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for determination of its species. Tests revealed that the wolf was non-rabid. The wolf was thought to have come from Canada. (Reports on file and available upon request.)

WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS (domestic incidents)

1. In the 1970s, John Harris, a Californian, toured the nation with “tame” wolves to promote public sympathy for preserving wolves. In July, 1975, "Rocky," one of Harris' wolves, attacked a one-year-old girl by biting her in the face. The girl was brought close to the wolf for a picture, an action encouraged by Harris.

2. In Maryland, a man kept a wolf in his basement and this animal turned and savagely bit and clawed his two-year-old son.

3. In New York City, a wolf bit a woman as it approached her.

4. At a zoo in Idaho, a little girl walked up to a cage housing a wolf and reached through the bars to pet the wolf. The wolf bit the arm. The arm had to be amputated.

5. Mr. Edward Rucciuti, former curator of publications for the New York Zoological Society and author of KILLER ANIMALS, personally witnessed a 12-year-old boy savagely attacked in the Bronx Zoo. This boy climbed a high fence in order to pet the wolves. The wolves (male and 2 females) immediately attacked the boy, ripping at the boy's clothing and flesh. The boy instinctively curled up in a ball, protecting his head, chest and abdomen. He then crawled into the moat in front of the exhibit with the wolves chewing his back and legs. Once the boy made it to the water, the wolves ceased their attack. The boy crawled out of the moat and collapsed. Mr. Rucciuti was amazed that the boy was still alive due to the severity of the bites.

6. San Diego Zoo (1971) A 15-year-old boy climbed the fence and tried to take a shortcut across the exhibit. He didn't know there were wolves in the exhibit and tried to run when he saw them. The wolves grabbed him by the leg attempting to drag him off. The boy grabbed a tree and hung on. Two bystanders jumped in the enclosure and attacked the wolves with tree branches. The wolves did not attack the two men, but continued to maul the boy. Dragging the boy and swinging their clubs, the boy was pulled out of the enclosure. The wolves in the enclosure were all young animals and it was thought that if the animals were mature, the boy would have died before being rescued.

7. A few months after the attack on the boy (#6), a man scaled the fence and swung his arms in the exhibit to get the attention of the wolves and got it by being bitten severely on both arms.

8. 1973 - Another boy tried to cross the same compound and was attacked, a security guard shot and killed one of the wolves, and the other fled as the boy was pulled to safety.

9. 1975 - Small zoo in Worcester, Massachusetts, a two-year-old lad was savagely bitten on the leg when it slipped through an enclosure opening. The boy's mother and 2 men could not pull the boy free. The wolves did not stop ripping the boy's leg apart until a railroad tie was thrown in the midst of the wolves.

10. 1978 -- A wolf bit a child in Story, Wyoming. The wolf was penned at a local veterinary clinic for observation. During that time, the wolf escaped its pen and killed a young calf. Wyoming law prohibits the keeping of wild animals as pets, so the animal was shipped to Ohio, where it had come from. The owner of the wolf went to Ohio and brought the wolf back to Wheatland, Wyoming. It was reported the wolf attacked and killed a child in that area shortly thereafter.

11. September, 1981 - A two-year-old boy was mauled to death by an 80-lb, 3 year-old female wolf in Ft. Wayne, Michigan. The boy wandered within the chain length of the wolf.

12. August 2, 1986 (Fergus Falls, Minnesota) - A 17-month-old boy reached and grabbed the fencing which kept his father's pet wolves enclosed. One wolf immediately grabbed the boy's hand and bit it off. The mother was at the scene and received lacerations freeing the child from the wolf.

13. July 1988 (Minnesota Zoo) - A teenage volunteer reached through the wire fence to pet a wolf and was bitten. The wolf was put to sleep and tested for rabies – negative.

14. May 15, 1989 - 2-year-old Timothy Bajinski was bitten by a wolf hybrid in his mother's Staten Island, New York backyard. Mrs. Bajinski has been charged with keeping a wild animal.

15. May 1989 - Lucas Wilken was bitten by two wolf hybrids in Adams County, CO (Denver Area).

16. June 3, 1989 - Three year old Alyshia Berczyk was attacked and killed by a wolf in Forest Lake, Minnesota. The wolf had bitten her severely and had injured her kidneys, liver and bit through her aorta. Alyshia was playing in a backyard when she got too close to the chained wolf that grabbed her dress and pulled her down, attacking her.

17. July 1, 1989 (Kenyon, Minnesota) - Peter Lemke, age 5, attempted to pet a chained wolf and was attacked. He lost 12 inches of his intestine and colon, suffered a tear in his stomach, and bite wounds on his arms, legs, buttocks and neck. While being life-flighted to the hospital, Pete arrested 3 times but was saved by medical personnel. The Lemkes have incurred over $200,000 in hospital bills. Pete has a colostomy bag, but doctors are hopeful they can re-attach his colon and get it to function normally in later surgeries.

18. September 3, 1989 - A wolf and a dog entered a corral belonging to Leona Geppfart of Caldwell, ID and attacked a 6-month-old 400-pound Hereford calf. Geppfart attempted to scare the animals away and they turned on her and she retreated to her house. A short time later, a law enforcement officer arrived and as he approached the corral, the wolf lunged at him. The officer stopped the animal with his shotgun.

NOTE: This list of wolf attacks is by no means exhaustive. They are simply listed to show that attacks have occurred both in the wild and other settings.

About the Author: T. R. Mader is Research Director of Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, an independent research organization. Mader has researched wolf history for more than 15 years and has traveled over 30,000 miles conducting research and interviews on environmental issues.

For more information, contact:

ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA
P. O. Box 2
Beresford, SD 57004

Permission granted to disseminate and/or reprint if credit is given to the source.

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

L_Killkenny
March 12, 2009, 01:10 PM
I'll agree with you some extent Brent. But the "cost factor" could be applied to all issues I named above. And like I asked, Where do we draw the line? The one thing I forgot to add and was that I think management may be in order and is not a bad thing. I'd love to get a chance to hunt and take a wolf. I'd also like my kids and future grand kids to be able to. Should a wolf pack be allowed to roam the streets of a town? No. But SOME wolves living in the wilds of the states we are talking about is a great thing. Even if it does pose some risk, even to people. I don't believe in absolute protection for anything (including people) but over all I think that game management is ONE area that government has done a decent job. Look at the increase of game populations in the last 100 years. Deer hunters want to cry about wolves killing a few deer, we have been a heck of a lot more detrimental to the deer population then any wolf population has ever been.

But my main point was, there is just not enough issues out for us to come to the conclusion that there is a problem. Especially using INTERNET originated issues.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 01:12 PM
FACT SHEET - WOLF REINTRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Check out this link...

http://www.aws.vcn.com/fact.html

and this link...

http://www.aws.vcn.com/

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 01:12 PM
Big Bill

Anecdotes written on paper or on the internet are still just anecdotes. In this case it is just blatant propaganda. Blatant falsehoods written to mislead with a specific intent in mind. This comes from a hunters rights/anti-wolf propaganda website. One that was very poorly/cheaply constructed and has been abandoned since 2004 by the way. Where are the references to case numbers? References to medical records? Etc?

All of these events happened decades ago, even in the 1800's. Where are the supporting documents the information was gathered from? You would really have to be grasping for justification of a preconceived idea to give this any credibility. especially since it is easily discredited.

Falsehoods, lies, and anecdotes. If this is all the anti-wolf segment of the population can come up with they really should just stop trying.

hogdogs
March 12, 2009, 01:21 PM
But the problem is this...
If you lose 30 per year to typical losses and then 10 to wolves it is a 30 percent increase in losses... That is hard for a rancher to absorb... Then on top of that the cattle under stress have increased risk of typical issues as they are under stress.
I feel that the "shoot, shovel, shut up" control method will continue. I would never hunt wolves for sport but would at the drop of a hat provide the same predator/vermin extermination I provide here under my state of florida permitting. I am listed on our myfwc website as a nuisance animal trapper/hunter.
Brent

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 01:21 PM
Wolf Attacks
Posted by admin October 25, 2008

Wolf Attacks by Juanita Amero

My articles in the past have been of the almost romantic type, telling of the legends in the outlaw wild canine world. In the end, the renegade wolves always come out as the persecuted good guy. As much as I would love to, I cannot go out into the field and study these predators first hand and therefore rely on a number of sources to bring the knowledge to me. Over the years I have collected a vast library and savor every bit of it. It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf has ever attacked a human on this side of the world. Many researchers claim that such attacks have never occurred in North America. Some say they most surely have. Everything I scoured could offer no documented cases of wild wolves attacking us… humans.

Biologists claim there to be no “documentation” either.

But there was a little tidbit that remained hidden between the lines. In order for an attack to be “documented” these four criteria must be met.

1. The wolf must be killed, examined and found healthy.
2. The wolf must have never been in captivity for any part of its life.
3. Must be an eyewitness.
4. The victim must die. Bites are not considered attacks according to biologists and when all four of these are met, then and only then can it be considered a “documented” attack. In retrospect, this would make it very difficult to document for the record any historical account of a wolf attack.

The biologists go on to tell me that the wolves of Asia and North America are one and the same species. I had once pondered if actually they were. The horror tales of Russia, Scandinavia, and India to name a few must surely tell of a genetically different wolf. What would make them such ferocious man-eaters? To this day, wolf attacks are common in parts of Asia. Maybe it can be slightly explained by this quote from Milton Skinner (author/researcher).

“Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals… come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle….”

I honestly believe there is some truth to this. The areas where attacks occur on humans are the same areas where the people have no firearms or other predator control. Well it’s a start anyway.

Biologists as well as myself have assumed that when a wolf attacks a human there is something wrong with the wolf. It may have been in captivity or be sick.

Historically, the four reasons for attack are rabies, extreme hunger, familiarity (trying to tame wild wolves or zoos) and the “heat of the chase” (interrupting a fresh chase and wolf kill). I think that a predator’s fear of man is both an instinctive and learned behavior, for the most part. Attacks by a truly wild wolf are very real, but wolves raised as pets or in zoos are well documented to attack and kill us. The accounts are numerous and disturbing. A little three-year-old girl was attacked and killed by a wolf on a chain on June 3 1989. The wolf tore up her kidney and bit a hole through her aorta. One month later, a five-year-old boy lost twelve inches of his intestine and colon and suffered bites to his stomach, neck, legs, arms and back in another wolf attack in Minnesota. Zoos carry abundant records of wolf attacks on people, especially little children. The child climbs the fence to pet the “dog” and is attacked. It’s obvious that these domestic settings for wolves are unnatural and once man and wolf become accustomed to one another in close quarters, consequently the attacks occur.

Although attacks in the wild North America are uncommon, they do/did very much exist, both in years of early settlement and today. I stumbled across this excerpt from an 1888 newspaper called the Saint Paul Daily Globe. It sent chills down my spine:

“NEW ROCKFORD, DAK. March 7, 1888 - The news has just reached here that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this city, were destroyed yesterday. The two unfortunate men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time. Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now than ever before known In North Dakota.”

–~~~~~~~~~~~~–
So here we have an eyewitness and a family name. Some say the wolves were rabid, but anyone that knows anything about this fatal disease knows that rabid wolves would not be able to function as a pack. Rabid animals are loners… they suffer their dementia alone and die alone.

The name of George B. Grinnell popped up for he investigated several attacks on humans. Although he did dismiss many reports for lack of evidence, he could verify an attack in northwestern Colorado. An eighteen your old girl went out at dusk to bring in the cows. She saw a gray wolf on a hill and shouted at it to scare it away. When she picked up a rock, the animal snarled and attacked her. The wolf grabbed the girl by the shoulder, threw her to the ground and bit her severely on the arms and legs. She screamed and her brother, who was nearby with a gun, came and killed the wolf. The wolf was a healthy young animal. Grinnel himself examined this same girl. She carries several scars from the attack in the summer of around 1881.

There are other verifiable accounts of attacks on humans by healthy wild wolves in North American history and now that I uncovered the unreasonable criteria required for an attack to be officially documented, it explains the lack of scientific “proof” of these encounters. They most certainly did happen; they do happen.

In 1947, a Vancouver man hunting cougar was attacked by a healthy pack of seven wolves. He shot the leader of the pack and the rest of the pack instantly tore the animal to shreds while the hunters escaped.

In 1992 Clarence Lindley was attacked by a 125-pound wolf while hunting horseback. It attacked his horse causing it to fall. Lindley was able to grab his saddle gun as the horse fell. The wolf proceeded to attack Lindley who fired at point blank range and killed the wolf with a shot to the neck. The pelt was flawless black and gray measuring seven and a half feet from its toes to its snout. The wolf was not rabid and thought to be from Canada. Just a few of the many “verified” encounters.

This has been a topic of discussion in communities both rural and online. Some have questioned whether the poor reputation of the wolf has any background or truth. I always assumed there were some, but didn’t realize to what extent. Does this change my romantic view of the outlaw wolves… not really. Do I believe these tales of horror…. sure do. They are wild efficient predators, vicious and unmerciful killing machines. What makes a number of these animals attack and terrorize humans…. who knows? Doubt we ever will. When we watch the news, it is filled with stories of us…humans, attacking and killing one another, but it doesn’t make us all murderers. I wonder what the wolves must think of us?

This has been an exhausting eye-opening topic for me and I commend those who egged me on, resulting in my last minute change of article submission. But alas…. next issue, I am back remembering my outlaws, keeping the campfires burning and the legends alive.

http://www.angelfire.com/sports/homenest7

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 01:26 PM
If you lose 30 per year to typical losses and then 10 to wolves it is a 30 percent increase in losses... That is hard for a rancher to absorb... Then on top of that the cattle under stress have increased risk of typical issues as they are under stress.
But that is not what is happening. That is dealing in hypotheticals. The reality is they are not losing additional heads of cattle. Let's just deal with reality and not fantasy or "what if's."

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 01:28 PM
Big Bill

Links alone would be enough. The reposting of the "stories" (and that is all they are...fiction and non-documented wives tales from unreliable sources) take up a lot of room.

I can post a 1000 internet accounts of aliens or chupacabra preying on cattle too. Do you believe that also?

L_Killkenny
March 12, 2009, 01:43 PM
If you lose 30 per year to typical losses and then 10 to wolves it is a 30 percent increase in losses... That is hard for a rancher to absorb... Then on top of that the cattle under stress have increased risk of typical issues as they are under stress.

Like PP said, it's all supposition. But for the sake of this I'm willing to call it "fact".

Lets use the same thought process when it comes to deer eating crops. Farmers fight insects, weather, soil conditions, etc. Does the loss of crops that are eaten by deer add to this? Is it a hard pill to swallow? Yes. Should we whack ever deer we see eating corn? hmm.........

Some want to argue that people and the big bad wolf can't co-habitate. BS. We can, they just don't want to. Ya, our fathers thought it was a good idea to kill off the wolves. Not out of danger but out of convenience. Same with bears. They also thought that killing off the buffalo, whitetail deer and elk was a good idea too. Same with killing off whole flocks of ducks/geese. Doesn't make it right.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 02:25 PM
PP - The fact is that wolves are being shoved down our throats as part of a rewilding scheme (http://www.rewilding.org/eco-wild.html) that the religion of Deep Ecology (http://www.churchofdeepecology.org/), which many so called ecologists, subscribe to.

Here is the Rewilding Institute's mission:

Our Organization's Mission

To develop and promote the ideas and strategies to advance continental-scale conservation in North America, particularly the need for large carnivores and a permeable landscape for their movement, and to offer a bold, scientifically-credible, practically achievable, and hopeful vision for the future of wild Nature and human civilization in North America.

About The Rewilding Institute Logo

http://www.rewilding.org/images/Kittybig.gif

The Rewilding Institute logo is based on a representation of a jaguar from an 800-year-old Mimbres bowl. The Mimbres, from southwestern New Mexico, were contemporaries of the Anasazi to the north and known for their distinctive portrayals of animals on their pottery.

We picked the jaguar as our logo because it is a top carnivore and necessary for ecosystem integrity in its range. We also selected it because recent research shows that jaguars once ranged much more widely in North America during the Pleistocene.

Jaguars are not just tropical or subtropical species, but temperate species as well. The jaguar, therefore, represents the idea of rewilding.

Albuquerque graphic artist Joe Adair designed the logo.

http://www.rewilding.org/mission.html

Perhaps, PP, you're a deep ecologist that believes in rewilding the entire American Continent?

As you can see. There objective is to reintroduce, beside wolves, Jaguars and other exotic animals in North America. These nutjobs want large portions of the Americas to be untouched by humans. This is their goal. Their ultimate goal, however, is to reduce the worldwide human population. (http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew930514)

Bill Duval said this in 93: (http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew930514) An associate of mine suggests the optimal human population in the long run in North America is the number of people who can comfortably use the hot springs in North America. The carrying capacity of a hot spring is the number of people who can sit together in a hot spring during cold winter nights. An empirical estimate of the optimal human population based on this criteria would involve fieldwork. My associate suggests that we form several teams of volunteers to explore hot springs in various bioregions of the continent. This "research" would certainly be an imaginative way to solve the problem of identifying the number constituting the optimal population of North America.Imagine that!

Here's another article everyone should read...

Rewilding Megafauna: Lions and Camels in North America? (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/barlow.html)

This is an excerpt:What do you mean by “rewilding” North America?

Rewilding is about restoring biodiversity.

Barlow: Rewilding is a concept that works with restoration ecology and evolution combined. One type of rewilding deals with restoring lost biodiversity. Restoration ecology is when you look at a landscape and ask how we can bring it back to conditions that are more natural, say, before Europeans arrived in North America. Another type of rewilding has to do with climate change, for example, creating a park corridor from Yellowstone to the Yukon to give movement to animals as climate changes.

Rewilding also attempts to replace species that have gone extinct in North America. In 2005, a top science journal published an article by a dozen prominent conservation biologists proposing a shift in the benchmark that is commonly used for restoring lost wildlife to former habitats.1 Most parklands and wilderness areas in North America will continue to be restored to conditions that prevailed just prior to the arrival of Columbus in 1492 [the “pre-Columbian” benchmark]. But what about rewilding a small portion of America’s natural heritage to conditions just prior to the first human incursion on the landscape some 13,000 years ago? This idea of rewilding from a deep time perspective is going back to a time before the first humans began to migrate to the Americas in the late Pleistocene [about 10,000 years ago] and asking how we can restore the ecological landscape.

Current trends in rewilding North America have to do with restoration of species displaced or endangered since the first European settlers arrived, for example, bringing back gray wolves to Yellowstone, reintroducing the lynx to Colorado, and bringing the peregrine falcon to the Midwest. That is standard practice restoration ecology. What I would like to address is the controversial subject of rewilding North America as proposed a few years ago by looking at a deep time perspective and saying lets not just stop with the wolves. What species were here before humans invaded the landscape, and is it still possible to bring them back?

taylorce1
March 12, 2009, 02:40 PM
As a son of a cattle rancher any wolf found preying on our livestock would be fair game protected or not; I don’t think Federal protection of a predator trumps a person’s right to protect their property. Now I don’t think that gives ranchers the right to kill every wolf that they see on their property to prevent them from killing livestock. Make no mistake wolves are opportunistic and will kill the easiest animal they can find and domestic animals are usually easier prey than wild game.

No doubt the reintroduction of wolves has had an impact on big game in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. How much is of great debate between the hunters and the officials in charge. I'm waiting the day they get them reintroduced into Colorado. I'm going to raise my voice and fight it as much as I can possibly to try and do my part to stop it or at least slow it down.

Can we cohabitate with wolves? I don't think so until as hunters we along with State Agencies are allowed to manage the populations of wolves through hunting. As long as the groups that fought to get wolves reintroduced get Federal injunctions’ even after their population goals have been met and take the management of wolves our of the States hands. I hope that someday I can hunt wolves as a big game trophy animal. When that happens I’ll be more inclined to say that human and wolves can find a balance and I’ll probably be happy for the opportunity to take one in the field when hunting.

hogdogs
March 12, 2009, 02:43 PM
I am all for a controlled population of wolves in the wilds and they should be controlled by seasons, bag limits and regional regulations...
But I also think, going back to the drunk driver analogy, you missed what I meant. We have a healthy population of 'yotes where 'yotes belong but MOST of the places that have them also have a non-game status and open or liberal bag limits with many being open year around. I also feel that any and all predatory animals should be fair game for land owners or invited "assistants" at his discretion with out any limitations what so ever.
Brent

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 03:34 PM
PP said this:...because all the studies have shown no noticeable impact on herds. In fact the last study I saw said that herds, based on tax information and gathered statistics, lost animals at a rate no higher than before wolves were reintroduced. In fact it was often less.So, where is you documentation for these statements? Give us links to all these studies; and, we'll determine for ourselves whether they are sound or biased. You can't expect us to just accept your opinion!

taylorce1
March 12, 2009, 04:10 PM
But I also think, going back to the drunk driver analogy, you missed what I meant. We have a healthy population of 'yotes where 'yotes belong but MOST of the places that have them also have a non-game status and open or liberal bag limits with many being open year around. I also feel that any and all predatory animals should be fair game for land owners or invited "assistants" at his discretion with out any limitations what so ever.

To use Coyotes as an example isn't very good comparison. Yes both are of the canine family but two totally different animals when you compare them. Coyotes are not as social as the wolf and more adapable to their enviroment than the wolf as well. Coyotes seem to be able to live just about anywhere and even though they are hunted without limits in most areas, they still seem to expand their territory.

Nnobby45
March 12, 2009, 04:21 PM
It's a little different nowadays as you said Nnobby45.


Well, I guess you're right. Never heard of Mountain Lion attacks when I was growing up in Western Nv. I'm talking about nationwide attacks. Lions have since been attacking (and sometimes eating) people from the U.S. to Canada.

Never were much in the way of bears, either, in Western Nv. Now their populations are high.

In recent years, Mt. Lions and bears have been found in the middle of Reno and have been common throughout the entire area from Reno to Carson City.

A bear tried to enter a friends home near Washoe Valley (between Reno and Carson City). He heard a noise and when he investigated, a large black bear was standing up trying to push in the window. When he called, the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife told him they get so many "bear" calls these days, they don't answer them any more.

Bears are common around his house (they eat the apples out of the trees), but they don't usually invite themselves in!

IDAHO83501
March 12, 2009, 04:32 PM
Although we will never completly get rid of the wolves in Idaho ( unless they let us poison them like our grandfathers did). They are too smart and sneaky to ever hunt to minimal numbers. The wolves have been taking a terrible toll on elk and deer in the Clearwater Region of North Central Idaho... Some cattle, and other livestock have been killed by wolves, but our wildlife has really paid the price for this liberal idea...The road to hell is paved with " good liberal intensions". The VERY FEW who thought re-introducing a foriegn species into the eco-systems of Idaho, Montana,and Wyoming was a good idea are not around to deal with the problems that they cause. They watch some bull**** T.V. show with some wolf pups running around and must think " What a wonderful thing". As a lifetime resident of Idaho who enjoys the outdoors I cant tell them there is NOTHING wonderful about it. People who live in wolf country (now) are seeing Elk numbers drop at a terrible rate, fewer deer, and sometimes their pet dissappear. We find animals just bacically killed, some of their asses eaten a little, sometimes some of their guts eaten, and the rest left to rot. It may not be warm and fuzzy to say, but, somtimes wolves kill just to kill, not to eat. We need to to kill them all,,,,they are a land shark that kills for the sake of killing, sometimes to eat, somtimes not. Our grandfathers got rid of most of them, now, we will be lucky to eliminate half of them.....Our wildlife will never be the same,,,,,and that is sad...........

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 04:59 PM
Although we will never completly get rid of the wolves in Idaho ( unless they let us poison them like our grandfathers did). They are too smart and sneaky to ever hunt to minimal numbers. The wolves have been taking a terrible toll on elk and deer in the Clearwater Region of North Central Idaho
I asked before and got no response, so I will ask again. Is there now a shortage of elk and deer outside of normal peak and low point herd populations? I am pretty sure there isn't. We know the wolves are not having a negative effect on livestock. So what is the basis for these claims of wolves taking such a terrible toll on the elk and deer herds?

taylorce1
March 12, 2009, 07:19 PM
We know the wolves are not having a negative effect on livestock.

I disagree, although I don't have any numbers on livestock killed by wolves. Any livestock lost to wolves, coyotes, weather or disease has a negative effect to the owner of the livestock. Any loss is still a loss on the books and one less productive animal to help the ranchers pay their bills with. Some loss is unavoidable, however the ranchers always strive to have zero loss of all their animals during any given year. To say a lost animal has no negative effect is a little presumptuous.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3411043/m/4301080401

Take a look at the pictures here and tell me there was no negative effect on livestock?

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 07:23 PM
I disagree, although I don't have any numbers on livestock killed by wolves. Any livestock lost to wolves, coyotes, weather or disease has a negative effect to the owner of the livestock
No, if the wolves are not taking any livestock that would have not been lost to disease or age anyway they are NOT having any negatiove effect. That is the reality of the situation.

It puzzles me that gun rights supporters that so often balk at anti-gun people saying things that are not supported by facts turn around and do the exact same thing.

taylorce1
March 12, 2009, 07:41 PM
Obviously you have no experience raising livestock or the effort a Farmer or Rancher puts into keeping their animals alive. Wolves don't always single out the week and sickly animal to kill, if you believe that then you are pretty ignorant in the ways of predators.

Besides when an animal becomes non-productive because of age it is usually because the animal will not breed regardless of male or female it is sold so it still has monetary value to the owner. We don't keep animals until they die on our property we would rather salvage what we can. Far better to get a little value out of them that leave them for wolf fodder.

We vaccinate for disease sure some will get sick. Hopefully we catch them in time and we are able to save them. Sometimes we don't but that can't be avoided as well.

I guarantee you regardless of the healthy, sick or old if a cow, sheep, or other herd animal gets separated from the rest it will be taken by wolves or other large predator that has decide to make it lunch. Besides where are your facts?

It puzzles me that gun rights supporters that so often balk at anti-gun people saying things that are not supported by facts turn around and do the exact same thing.

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 07:51 PM
Obviously you have no experience raising livestock or the effort a Farmer or Rancher puts into keeping their animals alive. Wolves don't always single out the week and sickly animal to kill, if you believe that then you are pretty ignorant in the ways of predators.
No offense, you seem to not have much experience with math...or you are just refusing to recognize the facts. The numbers do not support any losses being suffered by ranchers since wolves were introduced. There are tons of studies and tons of government reports on the subject. if even one official scientific report supported the anti-wolf claims you would never hear the end of it from the hunter's rights groups.

taylorce1
March 12, 2009, 08:16 PM
I have no hard numbers that is for sure on livestock killed by wolves in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho. However to state that there is no significant loss to wolves because of Government studies is plain BS. What the Government finds significant and what the owner of the livestock finds as significant is two different things. I'm just telling you with a family that has been farming and ranching in Colorado since the 1920's that any loss to predators is not an acceptable loss. So go ahead and stick with your Government studies and believe them to be gospel if you want. However I'll stick with what I know from experience that I've gained by living a lifestyle you obviously don't understand. Wolves will kill livestock plain and simple just as they will kill any animal they deem worthy of being their next meal.

I totally agree with you however, that wolves haven't driven up the price of beef, the price of fuel had more to do with that than anything else during the last couple of years. In the long run wolves will have very little effect on the price of beef, because what the farmer/rancher gets per pound of beef is a very small percentage compared to what the packer gets per pound. If you feel you are getting ripped off at the meat counter blame the packers not the wolves.

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 08:20 PM
I have no hard numbers that is for sure on livestock killed by wolves in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho. However to state that there is no significant loss to wolves because of Government studies is plain BS.
No, it is not. To say otherwise despite multiple independent and government studies is BS. Especially with no bases for the statement. In fact that type of action is downright ridiculous and shows nothing but a severe bias and willingness to disregard reality in favor of prejudice...just like anti-gunnies.

This topic has been covered on this forum multiple times and not once has anyone been able to provide any credible evidence to support the anti-wolf movement.

cornbush
March 12, 2009, 08:54 PM
I lived in southeatern Idaho before I moved to Utah, around Bear Lake. There are many more wolves in that area than the state census states. Numbers don't tell the whole story. I happen to be good friends with the state trapper for the area. He personally has killed over a dozen wolves strictly for stock predation, in one instance three wolves were trying to take down a yearling belgian draft horse, this was in July, they were not starving, none were sick or mangy, they will take an easy meal no matter what it is. I think they are beautiful animals, but the "reintrodution" proponents for the most part don't live where they get released. They take a severe toll on the deer and elk in an area, not just from killing directly, but from harrassing them in the winter when they are already in poor condition. Some of the biggest pushers for reintroduction were from the Washington D.C. area, so why were they released here? Because they didn't want then in their backyard either. There is a pretty popular rule on wolves the three S's, Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. They have their place, the lower 48 is not it.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 09:36 PM
PP - you are the one who is lacking in supporting evidence of your views. All of us on the right side of this so called debate have provided evidence which you have arrogantly dismissed as trivial or hearsay. While you fail to back your statements with evidence. So, until you can back up your statements with evidence, I suggest you quit polluting my thread with your useless posts. Here's just one example of many that you posted.I asked before and got no response, so I will ask again. Is there now a shortage of elk and deer outside of normal peak and low point herd populations? I am pretty sure there isn't. We know the wolves are not having a negative effect on livestock. So what is the basis for these claims of wolves taking such a terrible toll on the elk and deer herds?
The Idaho Fish and Game is the source for these claims. If you don't understand that, then you should do some research on your own.

Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves

http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9879957

Associated Press - February 20, 2009 3:34 PM ET

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The Idaho Department of Fish and Game says the state could be losing up to $24 million annually in hunting revenue due to wolves killing deer and elk.

The agency says the study is an update of a 1994 environmental impact statement related to the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park.

The recent study says the estimated 800 wolves in Idaho kill about 9,500 elk a year.

The study estimates an elk killed by a hunter has an economic value of $8,000.

The study also considers elk killed by wolves as illegal kills and sets the value of each dead elk at $750.

The study also factors in how much the state is losing because people choose not to spend money on hunting due to lack of game.

Republican Sen. Gary Schroeder of Moscow requested the study.


Information from: Lewiston Tribune, http://www.lmtribune.com

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 09:39 PM
PP - you are the one who is lacking in supporting evidence of your views. All of us on the right side of this so called debate have provided evidence which you have arrogantly dismissed as trivial or hearsay.
Evidence? Anecdotes from biased websites is evidence? By what weak standard does that qualify as evidence?

If you have any actual data I would love to see it.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 10:01 PM
Published March 05 2009

Wolves becoming commonplace around state

Placing wolves back under the federal Endangered Species Act could mean that sightings, now fairly commonplace around Minnesota, could become a matter of close encounters.

By: Sarah Smith, Park Rapids Enterprise

PARK RAPIDS – Placing wolves back under the federal Endangered Species Act could mean that sightings, now fairly commonplace around Minnesota, could become a matter of close encounters.

“From the surveys I’ve done we have a wolf pack in almost every township that has enough habitat to contain them,” said Park Rapids DNR wildlife technician Tom Stursa.

“They’re so commonplace many people don’t even report them.”

And that commonplace status is making livestock owners mad as the dickens. Farm groups have protested a court ruling last fall that reinstated federal protection for wolves, saying it will result in more wolves preying on sheep and cattle, especially in northern Minnesota.

But wildlife and ecosystem activists say wolves are absent from 95 percent of their historic range and are truly endangered. On Jan. 21, President Barack Obama halted an Interior Department proposal to once again de-list wolves until that agency formulates a comprehensive recovery plan, not the piecemeal de-listing that has occurred in the past.

The last tracking survey counted nearly 3,000 gray or timber wolves throughout Minnesota, mostly concentrated in the northeastern sector. That was about twice the density wildlife officials had determined was optimal for Minnesota. The population is holding its own, with stable numbers over the past decade.

Wolves have been somewhat of a political football for at least that long, punted from federal protection, to state management and back to the feds last fall under a court order.

In September 2008, the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia reversed the Interior Department’s plan to remove gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region from federal protection. The result is that they’re once again considered an endangered species.

Because Hubbard County and the surrounding regions have a healthy deer population, packs of wolves come here for the cuisine.

“About 75 percent of their diet is deer,” Stursa said. “They do get into trouble once in awhile and decide to dine on some domestic livestock but most of the time it’s deer.”

One important upshot of the court ruling is that frustrated farmers and ranchers can no longer shoot wolves that threaten their livestock. Wolves may, however, be killed in defense of human lives.

Only federal agents are allowed to cull a wolf pack in cases of verified livestock depredation. From 1996 to 2008, federal agents killed 931 wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain region and 1,951 wolves in the Great Lakes region, all in defense of livestock.

Nimrod cattle farmer Chuck Becker raised a ruckus shortly after the court decision was handed down. He complained to every available media outlet that wolves were scaring his cattle, causing them to run panic-stricken through fences and become crippled. He maintained some of his cattle were eaten alive by hungry wolf packs.

When the state managed the wolf population, Becker and about 80 other farmers were compensated for livestock losses at the hands – or paws – of wolves. Now the state management plan remains on hold while federal authorities have the ball in their red zone.

DNR wolf expert Dan Stark acknowledges some frustrated livestock producers may be thinning wolf packs illegally.

Sebeka farmer Tim Nolte told Minnesota Public Radio three of his dairy and beef cattle disappeared into thin air. He blamed wolves.

Interestingly, the wolf ruling had nothing to do with managing populations – or overpopulations.

It had to do with how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service applied its statutory authority, both designating distinct populations of animals and de-listing them at the same time. The Humane Society and other animal rights groups sued, contending USFWS had no authority to simultaneously do both.

Two previous attempts to de-list wolves in the Rocky Mountain area were struck down by federal courts.

The Obama decision ends what his administration termed the “premature removal” of wolves from the endangered species list in 14 states, including Minnesota.

The DNR’s official position on wolf management is currently: “The Minnesota DNR is committed to ensuring the long-term survival of the wolf in Minnesota, and also to resolving conflicts between wolves and humans.”

Minnesota has a total of 96 endangered, 101 threatened and 242 special concern species, according to the DNR.

Stursa meanwhile said there are ways to keep wolves at bay.

“We’ve been telling people for years, ‘If you’re going to feed deer you’re going to encourage predators; not only wolves but coyotes and stray dogs,’” he said. “So if you’re putting out feed for deer it’s actually a collection point for lots of animals.”

The federal debate will wage on as to how best to manage the wolf population. For the foreseeable future, the only beneficiaries will be the lawyers.

http://www.dl-online.com/event/article/id/42223/group/home/

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 10:04 PM
Evidence? Anecdotes from biased websites is evidence? By what weak standard does that qualify as evidence?

If you have any actual data I would love to see it.So, unless the Sierra Club says it, you won't believe it. FIGURES!!! :barf:

Gray wolf no longer considered endangered

They were first listed as an endangered species in 1974.

BY Conor Shine
PUBLISHED: 03/10/2009

The gray wolf will no longer be considered a threatened or endangered species in Minnesota and other states in the western Great Lakes and Rocky Mountain areas, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said Friday.

Gray wolves were first listed as an endangered species in 1974 when populations had all but disappeared from the continental United States.

According to a press release from the Department of the Interior, the gray wolf population in the United is currently at about 5,500.

Even though wolves have been considered recovered for 10 years now, University of Minnesota Fisheries and Wildlife Professor David Mech said bureaucratic processes and lawsuits have led to the gray wolf being removed and put back on the threatened and endangered species list multiple times.

“It’s a big deal in the sense that it finally happened,” Mech said. “But it happened before and it could be that with more court cases it could be back on that list.”

Mech said the removal of wolves from the list will not have a significant impact on wolf populations; instead it will transfer oversight responsibilities from federal agencies to state agencies.

“About the only real change is that in some parts of the state… a farmer seeing a wolf in the act of killing its livestock or chasing it or something can kill it,” Mech said, “where under the federal rules you cannot.”

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/10/gray-wolf-no-longer-considered-endangered

(We'll probably be hunting them in Idaho this fall. I can't wait!!!!)

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 10:04 PM
What was the point of that? It did not in anyway suggest wolves where being harmful to wild animal populations or domestic livestock? In fact it even pointed out that farmers are reimbursed for animals killed by wolves (even though they are not causing added losses to ranchers). Are you just posting random things now?

L_Killkenny
March 12, 2009, 10:27 PM
I'm not gonna say that wolves don't have an effect on deer/elk populations or prey on livestock, that would be stupid. I don't buy all the so-called facts of one side more than the other. What I'm saying is they are a natural part of those states (and many other states that they aren't in) and you boys, to some extent, need to learn to deal with it. The same way the rest of us have to deal with other wildlife that adversely effects our lives. We are in the same boat more or less and I understand your issues. But IMO, far too many of the anti-wolf crowd are not willing to accept any adversity as related to wolves like the rest of us have to with our issues.

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 10:30 PM
The same way the rest of us have to deal with other wildlife that adversely effects our lives.
I have a raccoon that has been using the bed of my truck as his swingers pad. I have caught him in there with "company" twice now. I have learned to live with it. :)

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM
“From the surveys I’ve done we have a wolf pack in almost every township that has enough habitat to contain them,” said Park Rapids DNR wildlife technician Tom Stursa.

“They’re so commonplace many people don’t even report them.”

And that commonplace status is making livestock owners mad as the dickens. Farm groups have protested a court ruling last fall that reinstated federal protection for wolves, saying it will result in more wolves preying on sheep and cattle, especially in northern Minnesota...

The last tracking survey counted nearly 3,000 gray or timber wolves throughout Minnesota, mostly concentrated in the northeastern sector. That was about twice the density wildlife officials had determined was optimal for Minnesota. The population is holding its own, with stable numbers over the past decade...

“About 75 percent of their diet is deer,” Stursa said. “They do get into trouble once in awhile and decide to dine on some domestic livestock but most of the time it’s deer.”

One important upshot of the court ruling is that frustrated farmers and ranchers can no longer shoot wolves that threaten their livestock. Wolves may, however, be killed in defense of human lives.

Only federal agents are allowed to cull a wolf pack in cases of verified livestock depredation. From 1996 to 2008, federal agents killed 931 wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain region and 1,951 wolves in the Great Lakes region, all in defense of livestock.

Nimrod cattle farmer Chuck Becker raised a ruckus shortly after the court decision was handed down. He complained to every available media outlet that wolves were scaring his cattle, causing them to run panic-stricken through fences and become crippled. He maintained some of his cattle were eaten alive by hungry wolf packs.

When the state managed the wolf population, Becker and about 80 other farmers were compensated for livestock losses at the hands – or paws – of wolves. Now the state management plan remains on hold while federal authorities have the ball in their red zone.

DNR wolf expert Dan Stark acknowledges some frustrated livestock producers may be thinning wolf packs illegally.

3000 wolves and 75% of their diet is deer? I guess the rest of their diet is northern Minnesota livestock. From what I read here, wolves are just as much a problem in Minnesota as in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. But, you wouldn't accept that as a fact even though it's as plain as day.

Playboypenguin
March 12, 2009, 10:38 PM
3000 wolves and 75% of their diet is deer? I guess the rest of their diet is northern Minnesota livestock.
You would guess wrong. They eat everything from elk, deer, rabbits, mice, and even some insects and vegetables/fruits.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 10:40 PM
What I'm saying is they are a natural part of those states (and many other states that they aren't in) and you boys, to some extent, need to learn to deal with it.The transplanted wolves from Canada aren't and weren't a natural part of the states they have been transplanted to in the USA. They are much bigger and more ferocious than their predecessors. BTW, L_Killkenny, that's a damned easy and arrogant statement for someone from Iowa to make. If you had to worry about your kids and grandkids being out in the woods of your state, maybe you'd sing a different song.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 10:48 PM
You would guess wrong. They eat everything from elk, deer, rabbits, mice, and even some insects and vegetables/fruits.But, they prefer beef and lamb. And, livestock is easy pickins.

What are you a half-fast wolf biologist? :cool:

Gbro
March 12, 2009, 11:01 PM
What is it about us humans that causes a wolf to not be interested in use for a meal? Maybe its the smoothness of our skin, they don't think its food unless they get a mouthful of hair in every bite:rolleyes:
The wolf will not hesitate to take on a large antlered wild animal, but us wimpy humans cause them fear.
They have "Evolved", they learned that two legged creatures make a big boom and they get hurt!
it took a couple hundred years of intense hunting and trapping, but they caught on, kind of like the deer along I-80, the smart ones caught on and they survived. And I mean they survived!
The year those lying fed's put the wolf on the threatened list, we relocated our hunting camp because of the wolf populations(29 years ago). Of course the wolf had well defined pack boundary's and we could hunt areas between packs with great success, well those areas are gone now. One has to hunt closer to towns to find high deer populations.
I myself could care less if I ever shoot another deer, but I love to hunt, but the youngsters don't see deer and they do loose interest. This will hurt all hunters when young hunters loose interest.
I took my Grandson across the county to where we used to hunt(before I bought my hunting shack) because after 2 weekends of hunting and not even seeing fresh sign we had to try something different.
When I got to the area where i would get 3 deer most years, no deer sign was seen. 2 inches of snow and not one track crossing the road in miles. 12 years back we would count 75 tracks crossing by morning after a fesh snow in a 1 mile stretch. Then I talked to the local hunting camps. 1 - 2 deer sighted all season. Nothing on the meat pole!, Why I asked? Wolves was their answer. Of course what they think doesn't matter to some as its just not scientific.
And I still think the Wolf is an amazing creature. Its the preservationist I dislike.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 11:09 PM
IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID

Date: March 6, 2009
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700

wolf delisting rule announced


Idaho Fish and Game officials welcomed the announcement Friday, March 6, that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar affirmed the decision to delist the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains.

"We applaud this effort," Fish and Game Director Cal Groen said. "This is good news for wolves, elk, rural communities and hunters. I believe this action will help defuse the animosity and anger associated with wolves when we can manage wolves in concert with our other big game species."

The Endangered Species Act was not meant to keep animals listed forever; it was designed to turn management back to the states, he said.

Friday's announcement doesn't include Wyoming, because that state's wolf management plan has not met the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salazar said. Idaho and Montana have approved wolf management plans.

"I don't believe we should hold these two states hostage," Salazar said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service, which made the decision to delist gray wolves in Idaho and Montana in January, will send the delisting rule to the Federal Register for publication. The rule would take effect in mid to late April, 30 days after publication.

When delisting becomes official, Idaho would again take over managing wolves under state law adopted in 2008 and under a wolf population management plan also adopted last year.

"Our plan is to manage wolves as we do other big game," Groen said.

Fish and Game is ready to apply the same professional wildlife management practices to wolves as it has applied to all big game species, which all have recovered from low populations during the early 1900s, he said.

Wolves were all but extirpated in Idaho by the 1930s. They were declared endangered in 1974, and a federal recovery effort brought 35 wolves to central Idaho in 1995 and 1996. Wolf numbers have grown steadily since then, to a minimum of 846 today.

Fish and Game has supported recovery efforts. Based on the Legislature's 2002 Wolf Conservation Plan, Fish and Game biologists developed a wolf population management plan, adopted by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in March 2008.

Fish and Game will propose wolf hunting seasons this fall, subject to Fish and Game Commission approval.

For information contact Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth at 208-334-3700.

The Fish and U.S. Wildlife Service delisting documents are available at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 11:15 PM
When I got to the area where i would get 3 deer most years, no deer sign was seen. 2 inches of snow and not one track crossing the road in miles. 12 years back we would count 75 tracks crossing by morning after a fesh snow in a 1 mile stretch. Then I talked to the local hunting camps. 1 - 2 deer sighted all season. Nothing on the meat pole!, Why I asked? Wolves was their answer. Of course what they think doesn't matter to some as its just not scientific.Yep! Just anecdotes from biased people? No evidence here! So all you knuckleheads just move along. Right PP?

Great post Gbro!

L_Killkenny
March 12, 2009, 11:36 PM
I have a raccoon that has been using the bed of my truck as his swingers pad. I have caught him in there with "company" twice now. I have learned to live with it.

Now that's dang funny right there!!!

The transplanted wolves from Canada aren't and weren't a natural part of the states they have been transplanted to in the USA. They are much bigger and more ferocious than their predecessors. BTW, L_Killkenny, that's a damned easy and arrogant statement for someone from Iowa to make. If you had to worry about your kids and grandkids being out in the woods of your state, maybe you'd sing a different song.

Lot closer to natural than you and a cow, yes? And no it's not arrogant just honest. I'll guarantee that the deer here in Iowa cause a MINIMUM of 10 times the monetary damage than the wolves will ever cause you out there. Crop damage alone is figured at $4.5 billion in the US. Arrogant? Think not.

Can you imagine what the US would be like if everyone was allowed to kill deer just because they bothered or destroyed property and crops? And deer, while a natural part of Iowa's eco system had to be reintroduced and managed just like the wolf. Bet there are SOME farmers that wish they were all gone. But they are idiots. My problem is not with control but with the absolutism which you people fight, and have fought since the idea of reintroduction, the wolf. To me there is a happy medium. The bunny huggers want absolute protection. The ranchers and deer/elk hunters want them 100% gone. Both parties need to learn to live with some control which should be decided by the area Game and Fish Department. But they are there, IMO they should be there, I like them there, and I wouldn't care if they were here as long as they were controlled and managed. Like I said, happy medium.

Big Bill
March 12, 2009, 11:48 PM
But L - deer don't kill people. Wolves do! I've got 31 grandkids and we can't even have a family reunion out it the big woods of our own state.

L_Killkenny
March 13, 2009, 12:15 AM
Bill, car/deer accidents kill 150 people annually. How many people in the US have been killed since reintroduction of the wolf into the lower 48?

Nnobby45
March 13, 2009, 01:52 AM
No, if the wolves are not taking any livestock that would have not been lost to disease or age anyway they are NOT having any negatiove effect. That is the reality of the situation.


According to the documentary on PBS that did a reasonably good job of presenting both sides of the argument, wolves most certainly kill cattle in some areas, and the rancher is compensated for the loss by the government. In other areas, cattle killing wolves can be killed by the rancher. Not all wolves kill cattle. The documentary, as I recall, covered Idaho, as well as those areas outside of Yellowstone Park which the wolves have now occupied.

Maybe the Ranchers who protect their cattle and, at the same time, aren't against wolf reintroduction in general have the right idea. Both the ranchers and the "liberals" can be pretty extreme in their opinions on how to manage the wolf populations, IMO.

There was never a contention by anyone, Wildlife Dept., Sportsmen, Ranchers, etc., that "all the game was being killed off".

Double Naught Spy
March 13, 2009, 05:41 AM
But L - deer don't kill people. Wolves do!


Quoted from the Bryan-College Station Eagle, October 30, 1990 for educational purposes:

CALDWELL MAN KILLED BY DEER

By Fiona Soltes, Eagle Staff Writer

CALDWELL_A Caldwell man was killed Monday when an eight-point buck charged and mauled him at the side of FM 975 near the city limits.

Charlie Jackson Coleman, 61, was pronounced dead at about 3 p.m. An autopsy determined that Coleman died from a crushed skull, but he suffered more than 100 hoof and puncture wounds to his back, stomach and face.

"It was the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen," said Burleson County
Chief Deputy Tom Randall. "It was more of a massacre than an attack."

Coleman, an antique bottle collector, was looking for bottles in the area at
the time of the attack. Several bottles had been thrown out of the roadside
thicket to the area nearer the road.

Randall said Coleman must have put up quite a fight, because a 15-by-15-foot area was covered with clothing and blood.

A driver on FM 975 told sheriff's deputies that he saw a truck parked by the
side of the road at about 8 a.m. with the driver's side door open. He
didn't think anything was odd until he saw the truck was still there at 3
p.m., with the keys in the ignition.

Officers called to the scene were met by the 160-pound buck, which charged at them. Coleman's body lay nearby, but officers were forced to shoot the buck in order to get near him.

"He was really possessive of the body," Randall said. "He must have stood
guard over it all day."

Randall said the deer had been seen in the area for six or seven years, and
that residents fed it often.

Don Steinbach, Texas Agricultural Extension Service wildlife and fisheries
specialist, said the case was "very unusual," but that deer are more likely
to become aggressive if they have been tamed.

"If deer have been domesticated and aren't afraid of people, they do get
aggressive when they come into rut," he said. "Rut" is the term used for a
deer looking for a mate, and the mating season usually lasts from mid-October
to mid-November, he said.

Steinbach said in most cases, a deer will become scared and run when it sees
people. Deer do attack each other over territorial boundaries, but if the
deer has not been confined or been around people, it is unlikely an attack
of this sort would occur, he said.

Steinbach said he recommends leaving deer alone, and warns especially against trying to keep one for a pet.

"People should not try to keep deer in captivity," Steinbach said.
"Eventually, they will have problems that down the road they can't handle.

"It takes specialized equipment to handle a deer in captivity."

If someone is threatened by a buck, he should take aggressive action, he said.

"You need a stick or something," he said. "A deer is not something you can
fight with your bare hands."

The buck's head and feet have been taken to the sheriff's department for
further investigation. Coleman's body was taken to Strickland Funeral Home
in Caldwell, then transported to a Travis County medical examiner's office.

The current mating season has produced at least one other attack on humans.

Three surveyors with Inland Geophysical Services Inc. of Houston were charged by a buck Friday morning in the remote woods near Beaumont. None of them were [sic] injured, but one of the men was pitched about 20 feet in the air and thrown into a creek. The men slit the buck's throat with a machete, which is standard gear for surveyors. The deer had been in the area for some time, and had become a "semi-pet" to the owner of a private reserve there.

I've got 31 grandkids and we can't even have a family reunion out it the big woods of our own state.
Sure, everyone wants to experience the great outdoors with none of the risks of the great outdoors. This sort of reminds me of people who move out into the country to get away from the city, but then still want all the conveniences of the city (fire, medical, police, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, convenience stores).

Common sense and a watchful eye will go far in keeping one's little ones safe. If you can't do that, then have the reunion at a city park.

taylorce1
March 13, 2009, 07:34 AM
Sure livestock owners get reimbursed for the animal that is confirmed to have been killed by wolves. So he/she gets paid for that animal but what about the rest of the damage done to the livestock herd? What does the Government pay for that?

My question is this? A livestock producer is paid for his animals by the pound and there are a lot of factors that may reduce the cost of what the calf is sold for. Wall Street, high fuel prices, and weather will all effect what some feeder will pay per pound to buy a weaned calf. The rancher has no say on what the market will do the day he takes his cattle to auction, all he can do is try and pack as many pounds as possible on his product.

Say he takes 300 calves to auction at an average of 550 pounds and that day he sells them all for $1 a pound or $550 each. That is a total of $165,000 gross that he made that day. Now take out his operating expenses, any land payments, and taxes hopefully he makes over $30,000 income at the end of the year. Say that next year wolves harassed his cattle and he lost 10 calves that could have went to market, and based on previous years sales the Government pays him $5500 for those calves. However when he takes the remaining calves to market they average 10 pounds less and only weigh 540 lbs and still bring $1 per pound, that gives him a loss of $2900 from the previous year.

Plus when he checks his cows he comes up with a 10 more cows than his normal average that didn't breed back, so he has reduced his production the next year by another another 10 calves. Now he will have to buy back cows to keep his herd at the normal level of production. Plus he might have incurred extra operating expense having to maintain fences torn down by cattle being pushed through it as well as extra time and fuel spend searching for his animals, and patrolling his herds to keep wolves out of it. He might of even had to hire on some help to get this all done, which contributes to a loss in income.

There is always other damage done besides the obvious that the Government pays for. Besides how long in this economy before the Government cuts out paying for the damages done by wolves and other wild animals?

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/live_news_detail.asp?id=1018

Lot closer to natural than you and a cow, yes? And no it's not arrogant just honest. I'll guarantee that the deer here in Iowa cause a MINIMUM of 10 times the monetary damage than the wolves will ever cause you out there. Crop damage alone is figured at $4.5 billion in the US. Arrogant? Think not.


Yes but how much does the Iowa farmer make charging people to hunt his fields? In Colorado if you charge more than $75 per hunter on your property you loose any rights to restitution for damage caused by wildlife on your property by the State. What does an Iowa deer lease cost these days?

Last winter a CO Rancher was charged with killing several elk on his property after they damaged his haystacks. That same Rancher was leasing out his land to an outfitter for over $80,000 a year. I don't know about you but if I was getting paid that kind of money for a lease, I imagine I'd be happy to feed the elk on my property to keep that kind of income coming in every year.

Besides one animal killing any livestock is a problem to any farmer/rancher, regardless if it is a bear, cat, wolf, coyote, badger, raccoon, weasel, or feral dogs. Just like too many deer, elk, or pronghorn in one field are a serious problem as well to farmers and ranchers. Compared to deer the population of wolves is very minuscule.

L_Killkenny
March 13, 2009, 08:30 AM
Yes but how much does the Iowa farmer make charging people to hunt his fields? In Colorado if you charge more than $75 per hunter on your property you loose any rights to restitution for damage caused by wildlife on your property by the State. What does an Iowa deer lease cost these days?


I have never paid to hunt in my life. Far from popular belief, 99% of hunting on Iowa's farmland are free for the asking. Most farmers let someone hunt their land. It may only be relatives, it may be the kids down the road, it maybe some like me that just knocked on their door, etc but very little land is leased. What land I do see leased is for pheasant. On the other hand, much of the timber lands have been sold off to the wealthy for development and private hunting land (not to be confused with a lease).

Compared to deer the population of wolves is very minuscule.

Pretty much my point.

taylorce1
March 13, 2009, 08:57 AM
L_Killkenny, Iowa has measures they can take to control the deer population. They can increase bag limits and add extra seasons or make them longer. Iowa can add cull hunts as well if needed. I'm happy your State has managed to stay 99% free to hunt for the asking, too many are losing that privilege.

Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho hasn't had good methods to control their wolves because of Federal protection. My biggest problem with the wolf is that the people who fought to get them reintroduced keep changing the rules. When the agreed upon wolf population was reached and they were going to delist the wolves and turn control back to the State they sued the Federal Government to stop it. If left unchecked this little problem could become a very large one.

It looks like the wolf will finally be delisted and States will be allowed to control their populations. I'm just waiting for the next injunction or law suit to come down the pipe though. I have no faith that the special interest groups will let this go without a fight.

I do however dream of the day that I will be able to get a Wolf tag and hunt one of them to do my part to ensure that the wolf is here to stay. I dream as well of the day when the grizzly bear has recovered enough to be delisted in the lower 48 and be hunted as well. I imagine I'll be able to hunt the wolf in my lifetime, maybe the next generation might get the grizzly bear.

sasquatch
March 13, 2009, 10:34 AM
Wolves have been hammering the deer herds in the Methow Valley for the past 3-4 years, and these idiots think it's "great news" that the wolves are back.

Playboypenguin
Is there a deer shortage now?

Yes, there most assuredly is. We have hunted deer in the Methow Valley for over 20 years. We have not seen a legal buck the last three seasons, and we hunt hard. The number of deer in the area is way down, overall. Many people I have talked to, including game wardens, attribute a large percentage of the decline to wolves. You may call that anecdotal evidence, but people who actually hunt in the area believe it to be fact.

Double Naught Spy
March 13, 2009, 11:07 AM
You know, you won't see the other farmers whose crops aren't being eaten by deer complaining about wolves.

http://www.cdaid.org/mod/userpage/images/deer2.pdf

Gee, and farmers get depredation $$ for deer damage as well...
http://idahofarmbureau.blogspot.com/2009/03/idaho-landowners-deal-with-depredation.html

It seems that some recent methods, such as propane exploders and electronic guards were ineffective for protecting fields from deer predation. Maybe they need some wolves?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784993

Playboypenguin
March 13, 2009, 11:12 AM
Yep! Just anecdotes from biased people? No evidence here! So all you knuckleheads just move along. Right PP?
What you just quoted is the very epitome of anecdotal. Do you not understand that? It also does not correspond with the reality of existing deer and elk populations. It is someone making an uneducated claim based on an uniformed observation that is countered by factual evidence.

I didn't see a bald eagle this week when crossing the I-205 bridge. I guess the bald eagles must be nearing extinction. Oh wait...you mean the last rookery count has them at the highest number in years. That is not what I saw so the facts must be wrong and my limited observation must be right.

You must believe that aliens are taking a huge number of Idaho's cattle too, since there are so many stories on the internet about it happening.

#18indycolts
March 13, 2009, 11:28 AM
wolves are wild, running into wild animals while you're in the wild shouldn't be anything new. Thats where the word "wildlife" comes into play.

Art Eatman
March 13, 2009, 01:35 PM
The thrust of Playboy Penguin's statements seems to be that while wolves will kill the occasional elk or deer, they won't kill cattle--or if they do, it won't be "significant".

There is no such thing as an insignificant loss of from $400 to $1,000.

One telling comment from Post #33 is, "“Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals… come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle….”

I know from decades of observation of wild animals that if there is no hunting, there is little fear of man. That holds for deer, coyotes and quail. I didn't say NO fear; I said little fear. As in they're not gonna panic in an effort to escape.

Again, no one anecdote is evidence. But consistent stories from numerous people over a lengthy number of years is reliable. Our society has come to the erroneous belief that the expertise of government employees is somehow superior to the experience and knowledge of a farmer or rancher on the ground.

Peripheral: The state's experts, the game wardens, of south Georgia are dubious that there could possibly be any cougars in the area around Thomasville. Why? They've not seen any, per newspaper articles. My wife has seen three, over a several-year period. How does she know what a cougar looks like? Because she can look at the hide that's draped over the back of the couch in our living room.

And the idea that ranchers should learn to co-exist with wolves is no different from saying that mom'n'pops and banks should learn to co-exist with robbers or that women should learn to co-exist with abusers.

Playboypenguin
March 13, 2009, 01:56 PM
The thrust of Playboy Penguin's statements seems to be that while wolves will kill the occasional elk or deer, they won't kill cattle--or if they do, it won't be "significant".

There is no such thing as an insignificant loss of from $400 to $1,000.
Close, but not quite. The wolves do kill cattle...but they do not kill cattle at a rate that effects total losses. They kill cattle that would have been lost to age and disease anyway. They take the weak and the sick from the herd. The only difference is the doomed animal ends up supporting the natural food chain instead of rotting in a ditch.

taylorce1
March 13, 2009, 02:57 PM
Close, but not quite. The wolves do kill cattle...but they do not kill cattle at a rate that effects total losses. They kill cattle that would have been lost to age and disease anyway. They take the weak and the sick from the herd. The only difference is the doomed animal ends up supporting the natural food chain instead of rotting in a ditch.


Why do you think they only single out the weak and sick? What proof do you have to support this? Wolves will kill the first animal available not just the sick, guess you don't have much experience with predators other than what you find on the web.

Wolves are pretty much the Apex predator in their environment along with bears and lions. They can pretty much take down and kill any sized animal they want as long as they are with their pack, one on one they would have trouble with any animal larger than a deer.

Big Bill
March 13, 2009, 03:44 PM
Why do you think they only single out the weak and sick? What proof do you have to support this?He doesn't have any proof or evidence to support anything he says. He/she expects everyone who contradicts his/her liberal view to produce proof of their statements while he/she provides none for his/hers!You must believe that aliens are taking a huge number of Idaho's cattle too, since there are so many stories on the internet about it happening. If by the word "aliens" you mean "transplanted wolves from Canada," you'd be right. And, you are also right about there being many stories on the internet about vermin wolves killing livestock - just for the fun of it.

Why should we waste valuable resources here in the USA providing our precious game animals and livestock as prey for man eating wolves that are of no aesthetic or commercial value, when the same resources could be used to enhance our game and livestock herds.

Mankind, throughout the centuries has done everything within their power to completely eradicate these detestable vermin (wolves). Yet, it has been impossible to do so. Wolves are a blight upon the face of the earth. They serve no meaningful purpose as has been shown right here in the USA since they were eradicated by our obviously more intelligent ancestors. And, only a numbskull would think differently.

Double Naught Spy
March 13, 2009, 03:56 PM
They take the weak and the sick from the herd.

They will take the young as well. They obviously will take what is easiest to take, but being easiest to take is relative to the condition and situation of the wolves and the prey. Their pattern of prey selection is comparable to other such carnivores. They are quite happy to scavenge when possible as well.

Mankind, throughout the centuries has done everything within their power to completely eradicate these detestable vermin (wolves). Yet, it has been impossible to do so. Wolves are a blight upon the face of the earth. They serve no meaningful purpose as has been shown right here in the USA since they were eradicated by our obviously more intelligent ancestors. And, only a numbskull would think differently.

Your grasp of biology and ecology is lacking. You perceive them to serve no meaningful purpose because they are in competition with humans.

You state...
He doesn't have any proof or evidence to support anything he says.

Where are your sources? Show us where it has been shown that they have no meaningful purpose. You have argued that they are a threat to the deer population and I showed where the deer population does considerable damage to crops such that folks work to protect their crops from deer. Given that wolves prey on deer, the crops are better off because the wolves are helping control the problem. Is that meaningful? Sure, to the tune of millions of dollars.

taylorce1
March 13, 2009, 04:48 PM
They kill cattle that would have been lost to age and disease anyway. They take the weak and the sick from the herd. The only difference is the doomed animal ends up supporting the natural food chain instead of rotting in a ditch.

Again sorry for rant on this subject, but this really just makes me go ***. Livestock are not pets, we do not keep an animal that has outlived its usefulness, they go to market where we are able to salvage what money we can. The only time a animal will not go to market is if it can't walk through the sale ring because the sale barn can not legally sell them. Those animals must be put down at the expense of the person who brought them in.

Just a little food for though all livestock are an asset weather it be for brood or slaughter. The rotting in a ditch comment really gets me going. You don't stay in business long if you don't liquidate the assets no longer making you money. Where would anyone get idea to generalize that we would ever treat our livestock in such a manner?

Big Bill
March 13, 2009, 05:01 PM
DNS - you shown me nothing except that your state is a pee-poor manager of deer herds. Whenever deer depredate farmland here, our F&G opens a depredation hunt in that area. Problem solved! Isn't it better that humans eat that deer meat than wolves?

And, BTW, I've shown all the evidence in this thread that I need to that wolves are dangerous to humans and their livestock. I don't feel further explaination to you or anyone else that wolves are dangerous vermin that need to be eradicated.

Thank Heavens I live in a state among reasonable people who also see it my way.

I'm looking forward to the big wolf hunt this fall here. If I get a big nice one, I'll post pictures for all you wolf huggers to pine over!

relee
March 13, 2009, 09:49 PM
When I was young I heard about him and he pretty much had wolves on his case....several hundred years of demonization later there is scant wonder that wolves are regarded somewhat differently than your run-of-the-mill predator. Perhaps this is because in their hunting style they resemble.....US! Herd and game management have scientific parameters that it seems could be applied to
predator pack management as well, you just have to wade through the baloney to get to the salami....

Bob

Big Bill
March 13, 2009, 11:11 PM
Pack of wolves spotted just north of Hailey (Idaho) near subdivision
By Benito Baeza

Story Published: Mar 13, 2009 at 9:57 PM CDT

03/13/09

http://media.kmvt.com/images/KMVT_wolf22.jpg

For several days now, Wood River residents have been seeing new visitors to their back yards. A pack of wolves have set up camp in an area just north of Hailey and has some people worried.

Recently a pack of wolves known as the phantom pack have migrated south from around Galena Summit to just north of Hailey.

Billy Morgan, a wild life photographer and hunter says they've been watching the pack since they've made their way so close to homes.

Fish and Game officials say the wolves are doing what predators do, follow the food supply, something area residence are keeping a close eye on.

Ward says, "These wolves have been coming every night and running elk off the ridge into the subdivision and making a kill amongst these homes."

What has some people worried is how close the pack of 10 are coming so close to homes, with in hundreds of yards; it has prompted the Department of Fish and Game to issue a warning.

Regional Wildlife Biologist Regan Berkley says, "We are advising folks never to approach a wolf defiantly stay back from the wolves, and certainly one of the concerns is with dogs and other pets."

Berkley with Idaho Fish and Game says people should keep an eye on their pets and livestock; but some still think the wolves are too close for comfort and are getting a little too use to people being around.

According to Ward "This pack does not have fear of people. We’ve been within a hundred yards, people talking, the wolves come in they'll eat on these kills, this subdivision might not have a little kid, not alot of kids right now, but a lot of neighborhoods do in the south valley. We don't want wolves in our neighborhoods."

The situation brings up the hot-button issue of how wolves should be treated in Idaho. And it has strong opinions on both sides.

Lynn Stone, a wolf advocate says she isn't worried about a wolf coming into contact with people or their animals, she says they're still afraid of humans.

Stone says, "If you don't want wolves around your face clap your hands and yell at them, they're going to run these wolves got a little use to people and I think fish and game need to come out here with cracker shells and scare them out of here."

Fish and Game says it is certainly watching the situation very closely. Berkley says they'd have to take more drastic measures if the wolves were to attack a pet or livestock.

Find this article at:
http://www.kmvt.com/news/local/41244152.html

Gbro
March 13, 2009, 11:46 PM
Big Bill posts
Thank Heavens I live in a state among reasonable people who also see it my way.

Some years back when the MN DNR was holding public meetings on Wolf management and trying to feed us the B/S about how few wolves in the state I made a proclamation kind of like this,
Between the lies told us by the US fish and wildlife service and the fact that "You" the DNR will not stand up to them for "Us", I therefor propose that "WE" the deer hunters sacrifice our buck tag and tag a wolf and give you something to count.
There were over 100 people in attendance and I received a standing ovation for my statement.
And I was right, as not to long ago it was revealed that the MN counts were falsified to overpopulate MN and force the expansion of wolf range out into Wisconsin and further. Prior to that wolves were relocated into Wis., but like true Minnesotans, They knew where home was;)

Big Bill
March 13, 2009, 11:57 PM
I just saw the story I posted above on our local TV news tonight. They did a video report. The wolf pack is 10 strong and they are huge, ugly black vermin.

They were chasing a medium sized herd of elk off a ridge and down into a subdivision where they made a kill right in the middle of that subdivision. They emphasized that these wolves have no fear or man.

Hailey is about 12 miles south of the Ketchum/Sun Valley area. The Galina Summit area where these wolves are supposed to live is about 30 miles north of Sun Valley and around 40 miles north of Hailey.

This wolf pack has obviously been dogging this elk herd all that way from Galina to Hailey, because it is rare to see a band of elk this low in the Wood River Valley. The people who live in this area are mostly wealthy people. However, Hailey is the town in the valley where the Wood River High School is located. So, lots of families also live in Hailey.

This is a hard time of year for these elk, because there is still snow up in that valley and the cows should be conserving their strength so they can drop healthy calves soon. However, since they are running most of the time, due to this pack of vermin, they either won't have healthy calves; or if they do, the wolves will be there for an easy meal.

It’s so easy for anyone without blinders on to see that these predators are raising Hell with our citizens and elk herds. There is NO WAY that this can continue if Idaho expects to provide hunting opportunities for our sportsmen and sportsmen from all over the country who come here for the fantastic experience of hunting one of America’s premier big game animals.

And, BTW, the wolf advocate in the article is a woman with a beard and she was either crazy, drunk or most likely both. She thinks all it will take to scare the wolves away is a clap of the hands. :eek: What a moron!

Playboypenguin
March 14, 2009, 02:04 AM
He doesn't have any proof or evidence to support anything he says. He/she expects everyone who contradicts his/her liberal view to produce proof of their statements while he/she provides none for his/hers!

I have tons of reports, studies, and census reports to support what I have said. Along with findings published by studying the income tax information from ranchers who right off their losses before and after wolf introduction.

The anti-wolf side has absolutely nothing but a bunch of anecdotes and a keen desire to ignore reality. I love this "da guberment is lyin'" stuff that people come up with when there own prejudices are not supported one tiny bit by reality. If that is the best argument the anti-wolf side can come up with they really need to give it a rest. If they have something factual to put forth I am sure most everyone would be willing to listen, but they just don't. Their entire side of the story is innuendo, anecdotes, and scare tactics. Where are loss reports, police reports, medical reports, live stock census, wildlife census? Why do they not use them? Here is a clue...because they all contradict their position.

Once again I will ask, do you think aliens are playing a big part in the loss of livestock?

BillCA
March 14, 2009, 02:28 AM
Okay, I'll throw out some opinion here, for what it's worth. And in the interest of disclosure, I think the wolf is a magnificent creature that should be preserved in the wild, in areas that can be managed and/or controlled. That includes keeping people out if necessary.

My mother is in her 80's and grew up on a farm in rural Pennsylvania in the 20's and 30's. They had some livestock - some cows, chickens, usually half to a dozen pigs. After WW-I and shortly before she was born, several packs of wolves crept into the area and were seriously hurting the small farmers and ranchers like her family. In one month, her father complained about killing 15 wolves on their property. Other ranchers had the skins of almost 25 other wolves.

On the bright side (sort of), granddad had also bagged a lot of venison that year for the smokehouse. The deer had come down to the valley after a harsh winter and the wolves followed.

The following year it repeated and locals were killing wolves again. Many complained about the cost of the ammunition too (some things never change!), but the main issue was losing livestock, especially piglets (lots of German blood in that area) which cut down the amount of food they had to feed their families or use in trade.

One of the farmers returned from visiting his father in Harrisburg and within a week was nearly wolf-free through spring. His father fought wolves in the 1880's, respected their cunning and their abilities. His advice was simple.

Kill one, maybe two out of a pack, usually the most aggressive ones. Then shoot AT the others, firing short to kick up dirt on them or just over their heads to scare them with the sound of a bullet going past. Wolves are NOT stupid. When they retreat, the survivors will remember this is not a good place. It only takes a couple of experiences for a pack to abandon a hunting area. Next year they will be cautious. If they lose one out of the pack, the rest will flee. The next year they won't even approach. This is because the elder members of the pack will know this is a bad area and in turn teach younger members to avoid it too.

When granddad and his neighbors applied the tactics, they worked. By the time my mother was old enough to go outside with her siblings, wolf incursions were rare, though they were still seen from time to time.

This tactic does not work on starving wolves, however. Lean looking wolves are usually desperate for food, especially in winter. And they're not terribly choosey about flavor. Chicken, pig, beef, horse, possum, raccon, people, dogs and cats are all potential meals. The only thing to do with a starving wolf is either shoot it or feed it plenty of food. Shooting is much easier and safer.

BillCA
March 14, 2009, 02:51 AM
PBP,
I have tons of reports, studies, and census reports to support what I have said. Along with findings published by studying the income tax information from ranchers who right off their losses before and after wolf introduction.
I'm not doubting you, but...
Care to share the URL of a pound or two of those reports? Or even the name and reference number of a few reports?

And I get what PBP was trying to say about wolves and the livestock losses. If your typical loss in a given period is 20 animals due to injury or disease, he's saying studies will show the loss is still about 20, though perhaps 3-5 were taken by wolves. There is no or little net increase in fatalities attributable to wolf predidation. True or not, I cannot judge.

From the Idaho Subdivision article...
According to Ward "This pack does not have fear of people. We’ve been within a hundred yards, people talking, the wolves come in they'll eat on these kills, this subdivision might not have a little kid, not alot of kids right now, but a lot of neighborhoods do in the south valley. We don't want wolves in our neighborhoods."
The best way to rid the area of wolves is to drive them out. A dozen armed men and loud noises. If they lose one or two of their pack it reinforces the idea of an unpleasant area.

Art Eatman
March 14, 2009, 08:50 AM
Playboy, you blew it with this little gem: "...but they do not kill cattle at a rate that effects total losses. They kill cattle that would have been lost to age and disease anyway."

The first is a physical impossibility. Any kill affects total losses. And total billfolds. Lost to age and disease? Oops, sorry. Cows that are oldER but not "aged" get sold off before they'd be anywhere near a no-wolf death.

Look up the meaning of "canners and cutters" in the livestock market. Figure out where your Cheapburgers come from, as well as the fancy pet foods. Or veggie-beef soup.

Your next mistake was in the idea of, "They take the weak and the sick from the herd." From the standpoint of a wolf's capability, any cow is weak and sick--compared to an elk or moose. And calves are a lead pipe cinch--at $400 per each.

My family has been in and out of the cow bidness since some 160 years back. Lotsa tales and stories, aside from my own experiences since 1940. Disease is the least of the problems, ever since they started vaccinating for Blackleg.

Always remember that the ad valorem tax man at the school district tax office doesn't care one iota if a farmer or rancher makes a profit. It's merely an abstraction if a rancher goes stony-broke.

Look: There are three basic kinds of cow operations. Most folks think of the common herd of momma cows and calves. Yeah, that's one. Then the calves go to a feed lot operation, to make the world smell bad before going on to the Hoggly-Woggly or the A&Poo Feed Store; that's #2.

Third is the guy who waits for some rain and then goes and borrows enough money at the bank to buy all the skinnies he can. He doesn't worry about the per-pound price if he can add 200 or 300 pounds through the summer. He sells out, pays the banker, and pays his bills with the rest.

Only the feed lot folks are immune from predator depredations--but they gotta sweat the USDA and IRS. (Why do they name a tax man "Slick"? 'Cause he's just a predator with mange.)

Creature
March 14, 2009, 09:59 AM
If something is repeated and believed often enough it becomes accepted fact (think of scientific theories which can only be proven to a certain point but are generally accepted after having been debated and cited enough times). Much in science throughout history was attributable to brilliant people who conceived of theories to explain things in the natural world which could not be readily or directly tested (for instance the early theories about atoms which are things you cannot see!) but since experiment after experiment seemed to support their existence, their existence became accepted “fact”.

Doc Nonverbal
March 14, 2009, 10:07 AM
I've read a fair amount about wolf biology (David Mech is a good source), but I'm by no means an expert on the subject. I know a bit more about applied behavior analysis (aka behavior modification), which also applies to this discussion. This said, I'll offer the following:

Wolves are highly intelligent and adaptable creatures. As such, I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't prey upon humans. The only reason not to, at least in my mind, would be if there was a threat involved. If wolves are hunted, they should maintain a healthy fear of humans (though there will still be exceptions in which wolves will probably attack when they get hungry enough, or if a good opportunity presents itself). If they aren't hunted, why would they fear us? When unarmed, we're probably much easier prey than a deer, elk, or bison.

As far as the best way to discourage wolves from preying on livestock, John Garcia did some research years ago on taste aversion in coyotes. By lacing mutton with lithium chloride (I think that was the chemical), coyotes became very ill after eating the meat. Coyotes that received this conditioning reportedly avoided sheep, and reportedly conditioned their offspring to avoid them as well.

As a behaviorist, I can see how this might work. My skepticism is that intelligent animals tend to be good at stimulus discrimination (knowing which stimuli lead to reinforcement and which ones don't). I would imagine that coyotes would learn that dead sheep taste bad, but live sheep taste good. It would be interesting to do a longitudinal study on Garcia's coyotes to see if this came to pass.

My thought is that wolves should be hunted in the winter, when they're more likely to be in larger packs. By killing one member of the pack with others present, the rest of the pack has the opportunity to learn from the experience.

I think it is important to view all second-hand information with a degree of skepticism. As Marvin Gaye once advised "Believe half of what you see, some or none of what you hear."

roy reali
March 14, 2009, 02:13 PM
If anyone is really interested in learning about wolf behavior may I suggest a book. It is called Three Amongst The Wolves. The author is Helen Thayer.

Buzzcook
March 14, 2009, 02:21 PM
Basically this is an exercise in the suckiness of the modern internet.
When I first got on the internet you could go to a college web site and find every paper they'd written on a particular topic. You'd get hundreds of hits. Try the same thing now and you barely get references to overviews of papers behind paywalls.
Government sites are also dumbed down. Getting info that contains raw data is pretty difficult and most of the articles are pre-packaged by a public relations flack.
Even the World Wildlife Fund just directs you to the opportunity to buy a plushy wolf toy, instead of any hard science.
That leaves google and its ilk which return tons of bias confirming crap.

So basically having an argument in which one side makes a point and then supports it with links to authoritative sites and then is rebutted by the other side by citations from another authoritative site is pretty much off the board.

Look at the depredation on domestic animals argument. The data for how many cattle or sheep or llamas are taken by wolves should be easily available. Information on whether ranchers or herders are compensated for loss due to predation should be easily available.
Instead we're left with snark.

Big Bill
March 14, 2009, 04:13 PM
Book
---------------------------------
If anyone is really interested in learning about wolf behavior may I suggest a book. It is called Three Amongst The Wolves. The author is Helen Thayer.All I'm interested in is a good book on how to kill the damned things most effectively. The only good wolf, IMO, is a DEAD wolf!

L_Killkenny
March 14, 2009, 04:33 PM
All I'm interested in is a good book on how to kill the damned things most effectively. The only good wolf, IMO, is a DEAD wolf!

That comment there is exactly what puts you in the wrong. Just think what wildlife we wouldn't have if everyone had that attitude about wildlife that interferes or adversely affects or lives and livelihood. Might as well kill off everything like we did in the 1800's.

Big Bill
March 14, 2009, 05:21 PM
Any biologist, worth his/her salt, knows that wolves are at the top of their food-chain and have no natural enemies other than the ultimate predator - man. So, I say let nature take it's course and let man resume his natural instinct to hunt wolves. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some restraint; because, if there weren’t, people like me would eliminate wolves altogether. So, I say, let the hunting begin and let the individual states, who know the minds of the people and the wildlife resources of their state, regulate the hunting. The Federal government has no place interfering.

Big Bill
March 14, 2009, 05:33 PM
That comment there is exactly what puts you in the wrong.Who made YOU the supreme dictator of right and wrong? Right and wrong in this case is just a matter of opinion and speculation, you are only right in your own mind and so am I. What is right, for me, means something totally different than what is right for you.

I could say the same thing about your opinions, and say without hesitation that YOU ARE WRONG? But, I'd be a fool for doing so.

In this case, all opinions are mearly subjective in nature. Any intelligent person should be able to see that.

The only difference between PP and I are that he thinks his so called facts and figures are objective in nature when in reality his sources are just as subjective, biased and unscientific as he feels mine are.

roy reali
March 14, 2009, 05:44 PM
There are areas in the United States that are experiencing unprecedented problems with mountain lions. West coast states are being overrun by the big cats. There are reports of sightings in states that people thought didn't even have them. Too many large felines, like too many wolves can cause problems. But, from what I have heard, wolves are one creature that used to help keep the mountain lion population in check. No, a wolf isn't goofy enough to take on a large cat. I have heard they would take out the lion's offsprings when given half a chance.

I don't know how much deer depredation is caused by wolves. They do say that an average cougar will take one deer a week. That means one cat will kill over fifty a year. If an area has 500 cats there goes deer. Also, cougars have killed and eaten our species.Wolf attacks on humans are sketchy at best.

I am a hunter. If the powers that be in this state say shooting any given species is kosher, I might. If an animal is in such numbers as to cause harm to humans then controling it is fine. But, I also do believe that nature does the best job of taking care of itself.

lizziedog1
March 14, 2009, 06:16 PM
Some time back I read about the dog genome project. They mapped out a dog's DNA. They found that a dog and a wolf share over 99% of the same genetic code. A dog is more closely related to a wolf then we are to chimps. In fact, a dog is more closely related to a wolf then a wolf is to a coyote. For all intenet and purpose they are the same species.

If I had to shoot a wolf for defensive purposes I would do so in a heartbeat. Other then that, they remind me too much of dogs to randomly shoot.

Double Naught Spy
March 14, 2009, 06:52 PM
For all intenet and purpose they are the same species.

No, they really are not, not unless they are a naturally breeding population, which dogs and wolves are not. They can breed, but that does not make them the same species, nor does closely sharing of DNA.

roy reali
March 14, 2009, 07:10 PM
Actually they might be the same species. One theory is that domestic dogs were once wolves. Therefore they would indeed be one and the same. Also, look at a pack of feral dogs. It doesn't take long for little fido to revert to his old ways.

Art Eatman
March 14, 2009, 07:46 PM
I guess one way to look at it is that the psychology of tame dogs is different from wolves, and that maybe feral dogs revert back to "type". But I dunno.

I don't figure I need to know how many sheep or cows are killed by wolves or bears. What difference does it make? It's a financial loss to a guy who's in the business of producing food and fiber in order to feed his family, pay the bills and the tax man. Same for the elk. Guys make a living by taking hunters out to hunt and thereby feed their families. Few elk, fewer hunters, more repos. Bummer.

If there were any fair and equitable system to recompense ranchers, it might be acceptable to please the wolf-lovers and have a bunch of howling at night. Trouble is, the system turns the wolves loose and burdens the rancher with the onus of proving what killed an animal--which commonly is near-impossible after the scavengers show up. The system supposes that livestock have 24-hour observation, and that's dumber'n dirt.

Probably the best thing for a rancher to do in the midst of all this citified do-good is to spend some time tape-recording wolf howls. Make a lengthy, quite realistic taped sequence. Sell the cows. Advertise in "Sierra" magazine, "Come hear the wolves!" Charge $100/night to camp out and listen. At night, be off a few hundred yards and crank up the boom box. Happy Sierra Clubbers. Remunerated rancher. No cowflop to shovel. How do you beat a deal like that?

nightwolf1974
March 14, 2009, 08:08 PM
BFD! the wolves have been here longer than the stupid people that are whining about them! they will be here long after the arrogant humans have killed each other off when the black substance from the ground stops flowing!!!!!!!!:p

Brian Pfleuger
March 14, 2009, 08:39 PM
Species:

(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species:

Biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not as categories or types. This view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely-held, with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species. Instead, a species is now defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as genetics and morphology are used to help separate closely-related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[1] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned.[3]


For what it's worth, all "dogs" are all variances within a kind. There is one species "Canine" or whatever you prefer, with variations within that "kind". Same with horses, cats, rodents and many other "species". Mostly, when people use the term "evolution" they are using it incorrectly. If any given change within a species is not NEW information then it is NOT evolution. Dogs are a perfect example. Within the basic genetic code of dogs is the capacity to produce both large and small varieties. A wolf (or Great Dane or Chihuahua) is not an "evolved" version of a dog. It is, in fact, a dog that has LESS information that it's ancestors. As is every other variety of the dog kind. They have not evolved, they have LOST information from their ancestors, quite the opposite of evolution.

If any two versions of a dog cannot interbreed it does not imply evolution. It implies de-evolution.

BillCA
March 14, 2009, 08:51 PM
If something is repeated and believed often enough it becomes accepted fact (think of scientific theories which can only be proven to a certain point but are generally accepted after having been debated and cited enough times). Much in science throughout history was attributable to brilliant people who conceived of theories to explain things in the natural world which could not be readily or directly tested (for instance the early theories about atoms which are things you cannot see!) but since experiment after experiment seemed to support their existence, their existence became accepted “fact”.

Oh, gee, let's see...
Brilliant people's theories and repeated "facts"...
Al Gore's Global warming
Bellerman's "coming Ice Age" in the 70's
Walter Schottky's eugenic ideas about blacks?
Goebbels propaganda on the jews, slavs, and blacks?
White southerners belief that blacks were sub-human?
Or maybe you're referring to the quaint British Victorian idea that all the Earth's flora and fauna were put here for Man and His uses or exploitations?

Pre-1840: Train speeds over 40mph will destroy the human body
Pre-1900: No man will every fly in the skies like a bird
Pre-1940: Space flight is impossible-there's nothing to push against.
Pre-1950: Airplanes cannot fly faster than sound
Pre-1960: Absolutely impossible to run a mile under 4 minutes.

roy reali
March 14, 2009, 08:52 PM
Thanks for the reference. However, there is a difference amongst the animals you have cited. Horses and burros and zebras can be interbred, but their offsprings are fertile. A lion and tiger can be crossbred, again the new animal produced can not produce anymore. The genetics are close, but no cigar when if comes to fertility.

Any two dogs that are bred can then breed again. A wolf-dog hybrid can have its own litter of pups. That is why you can have have dogs with different percentages of wolf blood.

Creature
March 15, 2009, 09:06 AM
Oh, gee, let's see...
Brilliant people's theories and repeated "facts"...
Al Gore's Global warming
Bellerman's "coming Ice Age" in the 70's
Walter Schottky's eugenic ideas about blacks?
Goebbels propaganda on the jews, slavs, and blacks?
White southerners belief that blacks were sub-human?
Or maybe you're referring to the quaint British Victorian idea that all the Earth's flora and fauna were put here for Man and His uses or exploitations?

Pre-1840: Train speeds over 40mph will destroy the human body
Pre-1900: No man will every fly in the skies like a bird
Pre-1940: Space flight is impossible-there's nothing to push against.
Pre-1950: Airplanes cannot fly faster than sound
Pre-1960: Absolutely impossible to run a mile under 4 minutes.

Ever see a black hole? Theory of Evolution? Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Only one theory needs to be proven to be true for that "never" statement to be proven false.

Art Eatman
March 15, 2009, 11:03 AM
I believe roy reali had a typo, saying "fertile" in lieu of "infertile" in "...but their offsprings are fertile."

BillCA, you ignored one very important phrase in your response: "...since experiment after experiment seemed to support their existence, their existence became accepted “fact”.

Tne outcome of an experiment is nowhere near being pure opinion or unsupported fact.

Al Gore's global warming concepts and the political views resulting from them have little or nothing to do with any real climate change. For instance, the tree-ring folks have reasonably well established that the SW US has been increasingly dry for some 800 years or more--but I doubt that mankind's CO2 was causative.

I've always figured that if there is consistency in stories from folks on the ground over a number of years, and inclusive of folks whose billfolds are impacted, there is at least some reason to pay heed. When the stories are in line with my own observations of animal behavior through many decades, I see no reason for scoffing.

Funny how people are willing to believe an individual's account of rape or child molestation, but unwilling to believe an individual's account of an encounter with an animal.

Flat Tire
March 15, 2009, 11:38 AM
www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-mar1409-hailey_wolves.3618eb02.html

I live in Hailey- untill you see these animals in action you have no idea. They are unbelievable. I have my name in for the DEPREDATION WOLF HUNTS. I bought a new rifle for the fall wolf hunt. I am gunna frame my wolf hunt permit and hang it on the wall !!!!

srt 10 jimbo
March 15, 2009, 01:21 PM
No Wolf down here, Dont know if I could shoot one anyway.:o

Big Bill
March 15, 2009, 06:10 PM
Same here FT!

Playboypenguin
March 15, 2009, 06:27 PM
Wow, I actually have to go to work for a day or two and the conversation has taken a weird arc towards genetics. It is going to take awhile to catch up on this one.

BillCA
March 15, 2009, 08:39 PM
BillCA, you ignored one very important phrase in your response: "...since experiment after experiment seemed to support their existence, their existence became accepted “fact”.

Tne outcome of an experiment is nowhere near being pure opinion or unsupported fact.

You're absolutely correct, Art. I did ignore that phrase. Mostly it was to show some of the "accepted hypothesis" of times past were no longer relevant.

But one sticks out in my mind: The earth is flat.

There were a number of ships launched throughout history that were sent to uncharted waters to find "the edge of the world". Almost none came back. The "accepted" theory was that many sailed off the edge at night, unable to see their approaching doom. Those that did return were often the result of "cold feet" by captain or crew (telling tales [perhaps] of sea monsters forcing their return).

Even as late as the 1920's, established phsyics professors claimed there was no way to travel in a vacuum because there would be no resistance for a rocket's motor to "push against", thus it would make no headway.

I was off, however, about the 4-minute mile. It should have been pre-1950 or 1940. Bannister broke the 4-minute mile barrier in 1954 and I thought it was 1962. Oops. :o Still, people had tried very very hard to beat the 4-minute mark. Up until the mid-1940's it had been considered impossible.

The current theory is that the speed of light is an absolute universal physical limit. (Star Trek & Star Wars not withstanding.) Yet, a single UV photons split with a crystal into two outgoing red photons will exhibit the total energy of the UV photon across vast distances instantly - violating Einstein's rule that information exchange is limited to the speed of light. He deemed this finding to be "Spooky at a distance".

All of this is a way of saying ancedotal evidence is just that. I have no doubt that wolves have killed people over the millennia and will continue to do so when the situation exists where hungry predators meet unprepared man.

Are Wolves any more aggressive and viscious than, say a Tiger, Leopard or Lion? Given each is very hungry for lack of game or ability to take game, I don't think so. Hyena, primarily a scavenger, should be shot on site, IMO. They don't learn or they learn very slowly.

Historically, man dislikes any animal who competes with him as being at the top of the food chain. Sharks, big cats, bears, wolves all get killed. In some people it extends to any predator species, even snakes and spiders.

Dogs are an offshoot of the Wolf. I suspect that ages ago, a primitive man found some wolf cubs and raised them. The ones that were too aggressive he killed. Over time, he ends up with Wolves that are "just" aggressive enough, yet willing to accept him as their leader. Centuries of breeding and cross-breeding have brought us the modern dog. Bred for certain traits, some more Wolf-like than others. (e.g. Herding dogs working together often use the same tactics as Wolves, just to different purposes and with different end results.)

A certain amount of predatory pressure is necessary for other species to maintain a high standard of vigor. Too much pressure can reduce the species to dangerous levels. Unfortunately, it seems that man's attempt to save the wolf, coupled with his encroachment on formerly "wild" areas creates too many conflicts. That, and forcing the wolf into too-small of an area for their populations.

Just more evidence that man is an idiot when he attempts to both "balance" nature and try to "control" it at the same time.

roy reali
March 15, 2009, 09:11 PM
We are lucky that our prehistoric ancestors did not decide to kill off all the wolves.

mtnm
March 15, 2009, 09:52 PM
"I live in Hailey- untill you see these animals in action you have no idea. They are unbelievable. "

FT and BB- yep. I am north of Hailey in the middle of the CNF and NP forests. Thanks for the thread. I read it fast- then slow and clicked on all the links. Then wrote an 11 page reply. :eek:


Big- Windy in the woods with wolves...

The local hunters talk about the huge size of the imported Canadian wolf, the large massive head, the large 6 inch track, the fearlessness of the non-hunted beast that has decimated our elk herds and upset the balance of nature we had in our state before Federal intervention. In a deer stand the wolves come in and circle the tree and will not leave. The hunter in the tree stand is held hostage.

An elk hunter with a bow sees a pack of 12 wolves who spot him and target him as a meal. He is saved by his buddy who comes over the hill with a rifle. Hunters tell of the meadow with no elk tracks but plenty of wolf tracks where hunters have hunted elk for years. They hunted Bald Mountain for years, my neighbors did, until no elk, only wolf tracks, so they don’t hunt any more. The only hunters on the Lolo Divide Road are from out of state. They don’t know yet it is a waste of time to buy an elk tag in north central Idaho. Home of the non- native, non- endangered Canadian wolfie, where ranchers and many outfitters have gone out of business. People who used to hike and camp up Kelly Creek return no more. The place is full of wolves and folks are less and less seen on the trails of north central Idaho.

I moved to Idaho and married the Game Warden who patrolled the North Fork of the Clearwater River on the Clearwater National Forest. Back then we had a native Idaho wolf who was tall, lean and black. We got him on video. He was catching field mice just off our place. Gene told me that the local people knew about our wolves, and protected them. I thought he was nuts. I thought wolves were bad. I remembered the story Mrs. Mead told me when I was in high school. I remembered the things I had read in Wild Animals I have Known, by Ernest Seton-Thompson, copyright 1898. Some wolves wantonly kill, like old wise Lobo. Mrs. Mead was young and crossing the prairie in a wagon and the family came across a wolf kill. A cow was down, half the hindquarter eaten, then the wolf left; but the cow was still alive. Wolves can be messy killers.
But the local Idaho wolf just ate mice near our farm, never caused trouble. I began to realize we could live in harmony with wolves. All of that has changed now since the Feds upset the balance of nature, brought in the non- native very large Canadian prairie wolf. Now local public opinion has changed towards the wolf.


Really a sad deal for everybody, but espically our local Idaho wolf, who is not offical nor recognised; except by the hunters and old Game Wardens who found him in the woods before the Canadian- Fed. wolf came to Idaho.

A black angus bull was killed in north central Idaho by Canadian wolves. The kill was covered to protect the wolf tracks and the Feds were called. They arrived on the scene 3 weeks later. All evidence of a wolf kill was gone. The rancher was not compensated for his loss. I guess some ranchers are paid for confirmed wolf kills, but I have never met a rancher who was. It is not always easy to prove.

Four wolves walked down a street not far from our home. One dog and two goats just disappeared that day, no trace left. I wonder what happened to them?

I lived in Colorado in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. My friend and creditable witness told me we had wolves in south west Colorado. He had shot an elk and the wolves got to his elk before him. He watched them devour it and let them be. No photos. No camera, and no witness. Except for the fact that he saw what he saw and it would be good enough for a murder trial; but not for a credible wolf sighting.

roy reali
March 15, 2009, 10:23 PM
I did some internet searching and found this website.

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/wolf_types/na_subspecies.asp

Canadian Prarie Wolves don't seem to be any bigger then any of the other subspecies of gray wolves.

mtnm
March 15, 2009, 10:51 PM
Some came from north central Alberta, some from Woods Buffalo Range. An outfitter friend of mine was in Canada and a rancher bought him lunch. He told him the Feds paid way too much money for his "cow- killing wolves." He was astonished. Why would any body want these wolves, the Canadian rancher wondered? Some wolves came from his ranch, but we were told they were all from the wild.

I saw on a Canadian forum thy had a 100 pound wolf. I never weighed one myself. Some wolves are tall and thin, some are fatter, broader, heavier- just like horses, only different. Hight varies also.

Lobo was " a gigantic leader of a remarkable pack..." his pack was a small one , " each of these, however, was a wolf of renown, most of them were above ordinary size..." p. 17-18 Wild Animals, 1898. These wolves were in New Mexico, on the Curumpaw.

If a wolf in New Mexico can be larger than normal, it is also possible some wolves in Canada may be larger than others.

roy reali
March 15, 2009, 11:04 PM
Can you please post a link about the wolves you mention? I would really appreciate it.

mtnm
March 15, 2009, 11:11 PM
I doubt if Wild Animals I have Known by ESThompson is on the i- net?

It is most likely oop but may be found in a library. :)

Because Gene was the Game Warden we got to talk to the Federal wolf biologist; back in 1995, when they thought about bringing them into our state. They told us they needed a breeding pair. “We have a breeding pair on Smith Ridge,” Gene told them. Then they wanted two breeding pair, to discover just two breeding pairs in one year (the study timetable) or else they would introduce the Canadian wolf to our state. I thought a grey wolf was a grey wolf; back then. I did not know they differed in size and behavior. We had Idaho native wolves, and had a pack (with breeding pair) on Smith Ridge.
They told us when we spotted them to call them. We did. They never returned our call. We had to prove to them and we had to locate our Idaho wolves. Idaho wolves were non- existent without evidence. Who knew of the Idaho wolf? Hunters and the game warden in the field of north central Idaho knew about the Idaho wolf. (The game warden in the field differs from the Fish and Gamer person behind a desk. This may seem simple, but no wolves can be found behind a desk or in an office.) Our wolves were not officially recognized by Idaho State Fish and Game. Gene said during his career, he saw game management move from the field to the office. This often frustrated him.

Neither are our local Idaho grizzly bears recognized by Idaho State Fish and Game. Only hunters and some Forest Service personnel and Game Wardens in the field know of their existence. Our Idaho grizzly is smaller than the Yellowstone bear. He is more timed. He is different. He is special. He is not recognized nor protected. Gene spent his entire career documenting the Idaho grizzly and trying to protect him. The Idaho State Fish and Game said prove it- give us a dead grizzly. Our last dead grizzly was said to be from northern Idaho- he drifted in, he did not live in our region, for we have no “official” grizzly bear, the Fish and Game office experts said. A grizzly bear track was spotted on the Boundary Peak road. “That’s the Hungary Creek grizzly, “ replied Norm Steadman, Forest Service employee and old hunter. He said it easy like everyone knows about our bears.

Ed at the auto parts house said the same thing, basically. “There was no excuse for that guy shooting our Idaho grizzly. Everyone knows we have grizzly in the North Fork of the Clearwater drainage.” Well- perhaps everyone local- our people that live to hunt and fish the big wild of north central Idaho. What is plain as day to us, is probably unknown to you. Being in the field makes a big difference; it makes all the difference.

Gene's grizzly bear report was published by the University of Idaho.

College of forestry , wildlife, and Range Sciences
A Prelimnary Survey to Determine the Status of Grizzly Bears in the Clearwater Nartional Forest of Idaho

Wayne E.Melquist Jan. 1985

mtnm
March 15, 2009, 11:26 PM
" Can you please post a link about the wolves you mention? I would really appreciate it."

I saw on a Canadian forum they had a 100 pound wolf. ...

No clue where I found that- I graze the i net and wish I had saved that site. Sorry. They read a track and guessed at weight.

I can't do that myself, because I am a city people.

I can give you a link to my wolf thread on another D Board if you want that,
but I bet that's not what you are looking for?

Flat Tire
March 16, 2009, 10:33 AM
I don't think the general public knows what goes on in the wild. If I were to put you on a snowmobile and take a little ride north of Hailey all you see is the remains of dead elk (a pile of bones in the snow is easy to find). A group of ten can dismantle an elk in one day. This group of ten (that I have been told to stay away from?) has to kill everyday. All I hear is they kill the weak and sick elk. THE WHOLE HEARD IS NOT WEAK AND SICK. Idaho Fish and Game says our coyote is a 30 pounder and our new wolf is a 120 pounder. My german shedder (I have three) weighs 80 lbs. and eats twice a day. He is a big boy but if he weighed 120 lbs and I had ten of them I don't think I could afford to feed them. I don't think Idaho can afford to feed these wolves.

pilothunter
March 16, 2009, 10:47 AM
VERY well put, Mr. Tire. On a wilderness hunt to Idaho in '05 we heard wolves howling every night, as they followed the elk herds. Our guide, who had been in those mountains for almost 20 yrs, said he'd found nearly 40 wolf kills the previous winter, himself. They have only continued to grow in numbers, unchecked. Personally, I doubt I'd book another hunt in Idaho any time soon, simply because of the wolf predetation I've read about as well as "heard".

Flat Tire
March 16, 2009, 10:57 AM
I like being called Mr. Tire-

Big Bill
March 16, 2009, 01:14 PM
People in this country have been misled by people like Mr. PlayboyP; and so, we are doomed to suffer the effects of re-wilding that overzealous biologists with an agenda foist on us here in Idaho.

Our family used to participate in a Family Reunion at the 4H camp just below Galena Summit, but will no longer do so because of the wolves in that area. It's just become too dangerous for all our small children.

I would think that the wolves in the area around Ketchum, Sun Valley and Hailey will take quite a toll on the tourism there also. It's a shame that we have to suffer here in OUR state because of a few dimwits in Washington.

Gbro
March 16, 2009, 04:32 PM
Big Bill says;
It's a shame that we have to suffer here in OUR state because of a few dimwits in Washington.

It was the @#$%@ %$&$#@$$ federal judge in Calaforny that caused us all the problems in MN. And that goes for the BS about the Canadian Lynx also.
I would suspect the science that was presented to the Judge was overruled by the little lady of the house that made reference to His Honor may find sleeping on the couch a reality unless her social club full of bunny hugger's get their way.
Wait, what am I saying! That's not the way the system works:rolleyes::eek:

Art Eatman
March 16, 2009, 06:21 PM
My thread drift is all Gbro's fault: There was a public hearing about the use of 1080 poison cartridges in coyote trapping. I think in Denver, but I won't swear to it.

At any rate, one quite elderly little woman offers her opinion that instead of trapping, the male coyotes should be live-trapped and neutered.

Unfortunately for the decorum of the meeting, Slim Pickens was there. He commented rather firmly, "Ma'am, the problem ain't that the coyotes are raping the sheep; they're eating them."

A cynic, upon hearing that lady's comment, might come to consider the notion that there is derangement inovolved in wildlife issues, and it's contagious. Where is H. L. Mencken, now that we really need him? :D:D:D

mtnm
March 16, 2009, 08:56 PM
Your link on post 119 left out the red wolf.

However I noticed a wolf recovery plan for the New England states, north east US (Eastern timber wolf) that I had not known of last I did
a wolf recovery plan study they (the Feds) were focused on the Idaho - Wyoming - Montana wolf recovery, New Mexico and Arizona ( Mexican wolf) and Red wolf in the southeast.

Here is a Defenders of wildlife link on the red wolf - very pro wolf group.

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/red_wolf.php

When I lived in Virginia I read Defenders of Wildlife news. All the poor coyotes in the west were being hunted to death- no mercy, (they said. :rolleyes:) Then I moved west and heard the coyote song everywhere. D of W are hoakey to me now. They get lots of money from city people for the wolf program. City people like me in Virginia, who believe the things I had read... until I went west and learned a different song from experience and living the life, not reading about it in a book.

I rode shotgun with my husband when we married. One guy was killing a moose, Gene gets out of the PU to check the deal and says to me, if I get in trouble get out with the shotgun. Do I get training? Do we have time for training?

...but what if I hit you? I am better off if you shoot the gun than not if I get in trouble, he says to me.

I told Gene you wanted links to my stories. He told me I interviewed the guy in the field who had the experience and that makes it a first hand account, and I would be the link, or source. I guess most wives in the US do not ride shotgun for their Fish and Game husband. It was not unusual then, because our back country sherrif deputy had his wife ride shotgun for him, but she got gun training on the range. Maybe I should have married a cop? :D

hogdogs
March 16, 2009, 08:59 PM
When I lived in Virginny
There, I fixed your error...:D
Brent

mtnm
March 16, 2009, 09:22 PM
Gene would fly in the winter to get an elk count. There was always a fudge factor, because the elk in the timber can not be seen of course. We wanted 25 bulls per 100 cows. We had 17, then 9 , our count dropped at every count. I think they flew about every other year. This was in the late 1980-'s-1990's.

We rode horses and packed in, Gene with his Idaho decker, and me with my sawbuck pack saddle. Our biggest fights were over wich way to pack a horse was best, LOL> Up Kelly Creek in the spring we went, and Weitas. Gene told of seeing 200 elk in the meadows. Snow was still in the higher mountains. I saw maybe 25-35 elk. Over time our spring rides the elk count dropped to 3-5. This was before the wolf introduction.

Idaho had few elk in the early 1900's. In the 1930's F and G brought them in on box cars from Yellowstone. Our herds grew, maybe peaked in 1950, then began to drop. In 1988 we still had a lot of elk in the Clearwatrr River drainage. Way more elk than Colorado, where I had come from.

Gene did not like the way the elk were managed, and had an idea how to do things better for long term management. Wolves were brought in on an elk herd struggling to recover. The elk continued to drop. New Game Wardens who replaced Gene after he retired told me our elk counts were better than they had ever been. I knew the history, I walked the land, and I knew better.

My environmentalist friends told me the elk have never been better. Wolves recover healthy elk herds, they told me. I don't know; perhaps this is the politically correct story?

When wolves came to the Clearwater from Canada, Gene was at the end of his career, ands ready to retire. The new officer told us he could not talk about wolves, or the wolf- elk impact for 5 years. Does this mean a gag order was issued? Perhaps it is all hearsay?

I am not good at gag orders. It was a good time to retire.

mtnm
March 16, 2009, 09:25 PM
Thanks Brent. I quit talking southern when I got to Colorado because they thought I wuz from Texas and that was bad... :p

I own two hog dogs by the way...

Chui
March 16, 2009, 09:45 PM
I *LOVE* wolves. I don't fear them and I think they are needed in Nature.

I don't live near wolves. So I've never been threatened by any them and I don't raise cattle so I don't directly feel their presence.

I think it totally stupid to deny the evidence of those who have experienced them at close quarters.

I don't see any reason why a pack of wolves COULD NOT attack and eat a human even if it's not at all commonplace. Would I pay attention if I were in wolf country? Hell yes, I would. I *KNOW* they eat dogs. And if one is by him or herself I think you might be harrassed - especially in winter when more work is required to bring down game.

Interestingly enough, last month while at a Border's in downtown Ann Arbor, MI there was an article in one magazine that had an old photo from 1911 of a killed wolf hanging from a pole. It was 7 ft 11" long, 12.75" across the skull and 185 lbs gutted. The wolf was taken in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan. I was not aware that they got that large. I figured 120 lbs for a male would be an average and maybe 150 lbs for the larger ones in Canada.

There is nothing physical stopping a wolf from successfully bringing down a human. When I would go into the UP I'd be sure to have a plethora of loaded magazines on me and if the trip was planned I significantly increased the amount of shooting drills I'd perform for about three weeks prior due to... wolves and cougar (though cougar has been spotted in the IMMEDIATE Detroit Metro Area and dogs are being killed by coyotes in the IMMEDIATE Detroit Metro Area).

Be safe. Be careful. Be armed. REALLY learn to shoot well and if you must have a dog choose the breed (and bloodlines) carefully.

roy reali
March 16, 2009, 11:39 PM
Go back to post 95. Read the book I mentioned there. It is a fascinating read on wolf behavior.

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 09:41 AM
We have a library on wolf and grizzly books. * I will come back and list them when I have time. * :)

The ones that come to mind are Wild AnimalsI have Known,

The one on the Wolves in Russia, at Amazon- ( wolf scat is very toxic and wolves spread disease) also the

Wyoming Game Warden book, Wild Journey, about how studying and handling grizzly by grizzly bear bioligiost has made a man killer out of him in the authors opinion.

*I am dislexic- my spelling needs improvement. * ;)

It is one thing to read about Europe, another to visit, but a third to live there. Happy trails folks.

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 10:42 AM
maybe Of Predations and Life- Paul L Errington ( not really about wolves per say )

Wolves of Isle Royal and /or Wolves of Minong - Durward L. Allen

( wolf populations rise and fall- they go from feast to famine)

Wolves in Russia- Will N. Graves

(wipe out cattle with Hoof and Mouth- wipe out reindeer with disease- come into towns and kill people- kill kids in woods- dig into sheds and kill livestock )

Of Wolves and Men-- Barry Holstun Lopez

( pro- wolf book)

The Wolf- L.David Mech

Hints of Coyote and wolf Trapping- US Dept. of Interior Fish and wildlife Service circular #2 1955

(When I was young my government encouraged us to trap wolves. If wolves were wiped out in the 1930's why would the government teach us how to trap them in 1955 ? )

The Wolf in North American History-Stanley Paul Young

(Jamestown was the first settlement in Virginia, before America was born in 1776. The settlers in Jamestown could not raise sheep in large numbers because of the wolf problem. In 1897 setttlers were greatly annoyed by the wolf who would raid livestock in the middle of the night at their home. )


History has all the answers for the problems of man.

Wolves kill pigs and sheep- goats and lamas- horses- cattle and dogs;
also people when wolves are not hunted. Wolves in Idaho have not been hunted since 1995, for over ten years.

Art Eatman
March 17, 2009, 11:31 AM
The first wolf I ever saw was courtesy of a taxidermist; in the show window of the "Silverwolf" gun store in Detroit. This was in 1962. Yeah, a "silver" wolf. The forelegs were as thick as my forearms. I'd have to guess from the size that it weighed somewhere toward 150 pounds, live weight. In the store, they said it was from Isle Royale, IIRC. The island in the Great Lakes country with all the wolves.

Seriously impressive.

hogdogs
March 17, 2009, 11:36 AM
As a kid in the thumb of michigan, the old farmers would jokinly warn us about the silver wolf that may exist there... Me and my buddy laughed it off as a mythical creature... NOW YA TELL ME!!!:eek: Dern glad my 4 foot 60 pound self didn't cross paths with a hungry one!
Brent

Playboypenguin
March 17, 2009, 11:45 AM
I am still waiting for just one person to provide information where any one presents a study of wildlife populations including all environmental factors including wolf reintroduction and the effects on herd populations. All these groups are claiming the government ones are lies, so why have they not found anything to contradict them other than "He said/I saw" stories with no real merit. They certainly could afford to do so with all the money they are spending.

I would also even accept any report stating official livestock loss numbers for ranchers (ie: tax returns) pre and post wolf introduction correlated with environmental data.

These claims are easily shown through real data so you have to ask yourself why the data doesn't exist. If your answer is "guberment conspiracy" I think you need to find another answer.

Someone please PM me if anyone comes up with such factual information. :)

sasquatch
March 17, 2009, 12:09 PM
Someone please PM me if PBP provides any links to support any of his arguments.

Thanks in advance.

hogdogs
March 17, 2009, 12:12 PM
PBP, If dead wolf carcasses shot while stalking kids is anecdotal to you than you continue your belief all you want... While a totally different creature, the coyote is close enuff and they are now roaming inner city streets and hunting in subdivisions.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/324731_coyote23.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917686,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17950832/
Given enuff time being protected by the nay sayers just like yourself who rather go thru life with blinders on failing to see the forest for the trees these will be wolves!
Pardon my harsh reply but it is folks like you who will harm the wolf far more than help it... Let us hunters and farmers deal with population control before your tax dollars are spent to poison them or hunt them from helicopters...
Brent

Huntergirl
March 17, 2009, 12:42 PM
PBP, you are so naive and wrong about the wolf issue. Come to Wyoming and experience it for yourself. Right now, you are talking out of your league.

L_Killkenny
March 17, 2009, 12:58 PM
Come on now Hogdogs, we're talking wolves and you throw out evidence that includes coyotes?....good thinkin:confused:

There's acceptable losses that everybody has to deal with when contending with nature and then there's unacceptable losses. I'll agree that state F&G agencies are far better at making decisions about control than anybody in DC and I've stated that fact. But from everything I've seen/heard the anti-wolf crowd is not willing to accept "acceptable" losses. Control may be needed and I'd be glad to help:D but we shouldn't kill all, or even most, off.

For the hunters that claim that the wolves are killing of the herds..... why was there so much game 200 years ago? Heck of a lot more wolves and bears then, and lots and lots of deer and elk too. I don't believe that a couple thousand wolves in 3 states will decimate whole populations of deer and elk when 10's of thousands, possible 100's of thousands, of wolves couldn't do it 200 years ago. With the limited numbers of wolves today, wolves and hunters should have more than enough game to go around.

hogdogs
March 17, 2009, 01:13 PM
Come on now Hogdogs, we're talking wolves and you throw out evidence that includes coyotes?....good thinkin
While a totally different creature, the coyote is close enuff and they are now roaming inner city streets and hunting in subdivisions. Given enuff time being protected by the nay sayers just like yourself who rather go thru life with blinders on failing to see the forest for the trees these will be wolves!
Because just 30 years ago the yote population was low enuff that encroachment into populated areas was rare enuff that folks in washington state thought control was not needed...
There's acceptable losses that everybody has to deal with when contending with nature and then there's unacceptable losses.
Acceptable losses due to predation on unfenced livestock must be understood but once a farmer/rancher OWNS AND FENCES HIS LAND Than any losses due to predation are unacceptable!:mad:
For the hunters that claim that the wolves are killing of the herds..... why was there so much game 200 years ago? Heck of a lot more wolves and bears then, and lots and lots of deer and elk too.
I am but a dumb redneck but could there be any correlation to hardly no hunters per square mile? Or any correlation to much more wilderness for all to roam? I think my uneducated self might just be on to something here... Anyone agree with my thoughts on the "WHY" part?:confused:
Brent

L_Killkenny
March 17, 2009, 01:31 PM
Acceptable losses due to predation on unfenced livestock must be understood but once a farmer/rancher OWNS AND FENCES HIS LAND Than any losses due to predation are unacceptable!


BS. Yes or no......should a farmer be able to kill every crop eating critter on land he owns?

I am but a dumb redneck but could there be any correlation to hardly no hunters per square mile? Or any correlation to much more wilderness for all to roam? I think my uneducated self might just be on to something here... Anyone agree with my thoughts on the "WHY" part?

In the states included in this debate, much of the land remains as it was 100's of years ago. Wildlife has adapted and and our presence would have little effect on them if you remove hunting from the equation. But let's put hunting into the equation......The states in the debate had 1000's of Indians within the borders. These Indians only source for meat was wild game. They didn't have grocery stores and factory farms. Every bit of meat they ate through out the year was wild game. I'm betting these thousands of Indians killed as much wild game in a year as the present day hunters in these states do during the short and controlled hunting seasons. Top that off, our right to hunt does not supercede the right of a wolf to eat. It may have 150 years ago, not today.

hogdogs
March 17, 2009, 01:48 PM
BS. Yes or no......should a farmer be able to kill every crop eating critter on land he owns?
ABSOLUTELY!!! Can he? NO! Due to game laws he is stuck there but deer are not also capable eating his dogs as well as crops...
I feel a land owner should have absolute dominion over his land so long as he is NOT selling hunts.
I feel game season and bag limits should be restricted to public lands... Also I feel no license should be required to hunt one's own land just like a 3 year old can legally drive my truck on my yard!
In the states included in this debate, much of the land remains as it was 100's of years ago. Wildlife has adapted and and our presence would have little effect on them if you remove hunting from the equation.
That is absolute hogwash! There is a very small amount of land in any state that is as it was hundreds of years ago! That is the BS!!! Most of the land is urban, sub-urban or agriculture at this time with a tiny amount set aside as wilderness...
But let's put hunting into the equation......The states in the debate had 1000's of Indians within the borders.
Darn it man! I don't like debating a person that gives me all my ammo!
You lost you debate with that statement... 1,000's of indians with stick and string versus millions of white, modern hunters with superior weapons???
I'm betting these thousands of Indians killed as much wild game in a year as the present day hunters in these states do during the short and controlled hunting seasons.
I am betting you lost that bet and I also assure you the indians ate far less wild meat than you realize. One village/tribe ate one deer at a time as refrigeration had yet to be invented;)... When was the last time you seen a whiteman feed the whole block of people his one deer?
Top that off, our right to hunt does not supercede the right of a wolf to eat. It may have 150 years ago, not today.
Wolves, nor any animal has "RIGHTS"! They, unlike liberals, know there are no guarantees in life! We have dominion as stewards over the earth and everything on it. It is up to us to handle it with a careful conservancy but to stick yer fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA with closed eyes is not responsible stewardship.
Brent

hogdogs
March 17, 2009, 01:56 PM
Okay L_KILLKENNY and PBP, A question... Lets say yall are both walking your dogs (pretend here if you don't have a dog or replace with cat or other pet animal) down the street and are armed with your choice of firearm... You find yourselves surronded by wolves but the wolves seem content to target your pets... You are just going to let the lease go and feed the pets to the wolves? Or shoot them before your pet is destined to the realm of wolf crap?
Brent

Big Bill
March 17, 2009, 02:14 PM
Okay L_KILLKENNY and PBPhogdogs - trying to talk sense to these two is like trying to talk to a stone wall. Neither one has any actual experience with wolves out in the wild. So, why try?

They're obviously part of the problem and I would lay odds that they both have hidden agendas!

Flat Tire
March 17, 2009, 02:25 PM
PBP-----True numbers

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/manage_issues/ung/elkupdate.cfm

If you look at how at the numbers under wolf denisty "very high" becomes unacceptable. I have lived in Idaho all my life. This is a new game we are playing and it is just a little shocking. It is very new!

This story below is about a story with 8 wolves that come in and kill a cougar that was eating on an elk kill. The predators are killing the predators. It is not completely widespread in the state but it is in my backyard. And it is just not that fun.

www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005125077&var_Year=2009&var_Month=03&var_Day=04

When you live here it is like a slow trainwreck. I have been planning my new rifle for sometime and having a great time waiting for the slaughter.

Art Eatman
March 17, 2009, 02:39 PM
As near as i can tell from comments from both sides of the argument, the overall wildlife/domestic stock situation pretty well stabilized by the 1940s insofar as predation was concerned. That means that approximately a half-century or so of stability has existed. IOW, normal ups and downs due to weather and food supply and people doing what people do.

The idea of, "Let's bring back the wolf so it will be like the old days," is purely romantic. Straight out of Felix Salter and Walt Disney. The problem for many of the local-resident types is the belief that feeding one's family and paying one's taxes take priority over the romanticism of strangers who have no physical or monetary involvement in the area. The authoritarianism of, "You oughta do like I say, in order to suit my picture of how things oughta be," is resented.

I fail to see how a city dweller has any sort of right whatsoever to determine what an "acceptable" loss is to a rancher. Or what the "acceptable" loss of income is to a hunting guide.

Basically, it's nothing but arrogance and a totally undeserved sense of self-importance.

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 02:46 PM
BB great post. :)

For a historical reference to the ammount of game along the old Lolo Trail in north central Idaho 200 years ago, please refur to the Journals of Lewis and Clark, 1805-1806.

1) Many Nez perce people died over this winter of starvation.

2) Because of a lack of game around Kamiah Idaho, in the spring of 1806 the Nez Perce people gave L and C a horse to eat. They also ate dog. NP would rather die than eat horse or dog. :D

3) Crossing the Lolo Trail was very difficult in 1805 the L and C expedition almost starved to death on this part of their journey to the sea. Not much game they recorded in the journals.

Perhaps Lewis and Clarks journals are not politically correct?

They shot a coyote on the edge of the Weippe Prairie, and the Bitterroot Mountains which today are full of wolves had none in that day.

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 02:52 PM
The wolf debate is more like a religon than a science. I just dont "get it?"

L_Killkenny
March 17, 2009, 03:23 PM
Just like arguing with my kids here Brent...LOL. I'll take these 1 at a time:

#1) Wolf trying to eat my dog? I'd shoot the critter as fast as I could. And in all my post I have been consistent. I have no problems with killing a wolf. Just not all or most of em.

#2)Farmers should be able to kill every crop eating critter on their place? Good for you, you just managed to kill off 99% of the game animals in Iowa (and most other states).

#3) Maybe in Florida most of the land is urban or agricultural but have you seen Wyo, Mt and Id? Is much of the land being used? Yes. Is it urban? Heck no? Does it look much different than 200 years ago and heavily populated? Heck no.

#4) Millions of animals are currently killed every year with bows by woodsman not nearly as skilled as the Indians. Their little strings and sticks were highly effective and managed to kill it's fair share of white folk too.

#5) Whole villages killed/ate 1 deer at a time? LMAO. Prehistoric man had been running them off of cliffs for forever!! They didn't need a stinkin refrigerator, they dried their meat to preserve it. Whole tribes would join in buffalo hunts to kill them by the 100's at a time. What you been smokin...

#6) Maybe instead of saying animals have rights it would be better say that WE have certain obligations. Preserving wildlife for future generations and making as clean of kills as possible being 2 of them. You obviously don't agree with the first. I wonder if you agree with the second.

I am but a dumb redneck.......
Glad you said it :D

I fail to see how a city dweller has any sort of right whatsoever to determine what an "acceptable" loss is to a rancher. Or what the "acceptable" loss of income is to a hunting guide..

First off, city dweller I am not. 2nd, I'll tell you why we have the right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their property..... It's called the constitution. You may not believe in or obligations to this great land but legally we have the right to tell you that something is unacceptable. Art, answer my question that I asked about deer on a far a few post back...yes or no? 50-75 years ago deer were re-introduced into Iowa. Maybe that was a bad idea too.

hogdogs
March 17, 2009, 03:58 PM
Just like arguing with my kids here Brent...LOL. I'll take these 1 at a time:
So will I!
#1) Wolf trying to eat my dog? I'd shoot the critter as fast as I could. And in all my post I have been consistent. I have no problems with killing a wolf. Just not all or most of em.
So yer sorry azz pet that costs you money and never profits yer wallet isn't fair game but a ranchers income earning cattle are fair game? i never said every wolf should be killed either... Just those in ranches and overpopulation prevention the wilderness.
#2)Farmers should be able to kill every crop eating critter on their place? Good for you, you just managed to kill off 99% of the game animals in Iowa (and most other states).
Well if there was so much wilderness than it wouldn't be 99%... NOW WOULD IT!!!
#3) Maybe in Florida most of the land is urban or agricultural but have you seen Wyo, Mt and Id? Is much of the land being used? Yes. Is it urban? Heck no? Does it look much different than 200 years ago and heavily populated? Heck no.
Small parts of florida are urban and sub-urban with the vast majority in crop land, wetland, and woods...
Many times I have seen those states and from what I seen in the many trips crosscountry with a nature loving trucker/father/farmer most was in crop land and ranchland with only the mountainous areas not utilized for those tasks and some of that was open range ranched.
#4) Millions of animals are currently killed every year with bows by woodsman not nearly as skilled as the Indians. Their little strings and sticks were highly effective and managed to kill it's fair share of white folk too
Amen and these same whitemen have store bought items to take them far and above the lethality of the redman and his hickory bow... 40 yards is average max for the archer but 60 plus is still easy money for the bow and carbon arrow... And we have treestands and corn feeders too...
Having studied native american lifestyle, skill and equipment since getting to sit with Navajo indians on their tribal land night after night as a guest while the company my father worked for did road construction i know they would take a 40 yard shot if they were starving but could easily get within 5 yards due to their skill. These are also the folks who taught me how what when and why they killed and ate wild meat!
#5) Whole villages killed/ate 1 deer at a time? LMAO. Prehistoric man had been running them off of cliffs for forever!! They didn't need a stinkin refrigerator, they dried their meat to preserve it. Whole tribes would join in buffalo hunts to kill them by the 100's at a time. What you been smokin...
Prehistoric man had little skill and fewer weapons... hunting slow moving or stampede mentality animals... Far different than native americans of the last 12,000 years!
In florida drying meat is a fallacy! Humidity! Whole tribes joined in buffalo hunts but only a few were killed! How in the ever lovin' hell they gonna drag on ton animals back to the village? Give me a break! It was the white man who killed hundreds at a time to starve out the indians that were kickin their azz and to avoid train derailments caused by the aforementioned 1 ton beasts!
#6) Maybe instead of saying animals have rights it would be better say that WE have certain obligations. Preserving wildlife for future generations and making as clean of kills as possible being 2 of them. You obviously don't agree with the first. I wonder if you agree with the second.
Preserving wildlife in sustainable populations in areas that they should live in is likely at the fore front of all these folks minds that you are arguing with or that are shaking their head at the spittle you dribble from yer lips...
As for number 2 You have no right to question my concern for a clean kill when you feel it is fine for a wolf to feed on a still living animal that is not part of it's original diet! But I am the most humane killer I know... Even when I stick I wild hog with a knife I try to make it as close to instant as possible and thus I have studied their biology with bloody hands HUNDREDS of times to perfect the kill!
First off, city dweller I am not. 2nd, I'll tell you why we have the right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their property..... It's called the constitution. You may not believe in or obligations to this great land but legally we have the right to tell you that something is unacceptable. Art, answer my question that I asked about deer on a far a few post back...yes or no? 50-75 years ago deer were re-introduced into Iowa. Maybe that was a bad idea too.
UMMM Pardon me but the constitution no where says that the government will be able to control how a land owner lives on his property! In fact as to your comment WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKIN' It ain't the weed grown by our forefathers on their own land!
Now A dumb redneck just OBLITERATED every statement you numbered and I am pretty dang sure most here will agree that you need to go off and lick your proverbial wounds! You have just been schooled by this redneck and those that also joined in this!
Brent

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 04:30 PM
"Maybe in Florida most of the land is urban or agricultural but have you seen Wyo, Mt and Id? Is much of the land being used? Yes. Is it urban? Heck no? Does it look much different than 200 years ago and heavily populated? Heck no."

I thought florida was a wild swampy place of hurricans, red necks, cracker horses who walk on water,hog dogs and flooded trails and wild cattle? :D

My Nez Perce friend told me how wild it was in Fish Creek before the highway brought people and change. I live in the center of the big wild which is wilder than any where but Alaska they say. Only it is less than 1/2 what it was in 1900. :eek:

No its not Washington D.C. today, it is wild by those standards, but tamed by what we once had. Will James wrote about how the west lost its wild in 1935. Bud Moore wrote about what we lost since he was a boy, Bud isin his 80's now. WE wrecked his wild place. We have been wrecking wild places for a long time. Jeff Cooper wrote a book called Another Country,for his wild places are gone. Yesterday can never be re- done. Once a wild place is lost, it is lost forever.

Does Idaho have more wild than Virginny today? Yes. Is Idaho the same as yesterday? No.

Art Eatman
March 17, 2009, 05:29 PM
Deer on farms? Deer are browsers, not grazers. Stray cows will eat more pre-harvest grain plants than all the deer in Iowa. And, of course, the laws allow for removal of crop-damaging deer, when such a problem does occur. So far, little or no such deal with the wolf. Raccoons will rampage through a corn field when the ears are young, but I never saw where deer had eaten any of ours. (Somewhere in my garage is my grandfather's old corn sheller, from when he put me to work with it in the 1940s.) Oats? Deer love oats. That's some of the best bait there is, when the plants are very small and winter has cut back on herbs and forbs. Once the plants get any size, though, they're not nearly as yummy. :D

Sure anybody has the right to go to offering an opinion--separate from giving orders--but somewhere in the Constitution there's a "bit" about taking property without recompense. Not supposed to do that, and imposing predation upon someone's cow herd is indeed a taking. If ya really wanna drag the Constitution into all this. But imposing predation is indeed restricting the free and legal use of one's property--and federal courts have held that it's not supposed to be done.

We've wandered a long way from $$$/wolves/Idaho. Finish out this page and call it done. :D

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 05:44 PM
Well, now that you mention it- I did think I had a right to protect my horse, my dog and other property... :D

Non- en dangered - "endangered species" (such as wolves) changes all that thou...

WE have 3,000 plus in the lower 48, 10,000 or so in Alaska, 50, or 60,000 in Canada. How many count do we need until the wolf is not endangered?

Canadian wolves were brought to Yellowstone. Then to Idaho. Idaho was going to have a wolf season last yer but a Fed. judge in Montana declared the Yellowstone wolves have to crossbreed with the Idaho wolves first.

What the heck? :eek:

Flat Tire
March 17, 2009, 06:37 PM
Last years hunt in Idaho was also shot down because Wyoming didn't have a plan, all three states got lumped together. I think Wyoming wants shoot on site, just a free-for-all.

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 07:27 PM
They seperated Wyoming from Idaho and Montana and we were all set for a wolf hunt. My environmentalist friends kept me updated on the montana lawsuit. :)

Yeah darn that Wyoming they think wolves are predators. LOL>
Shoot on sight- except in Yellowstone. States should know better than to buck the wise Feds. :D

taylorce1
March 17, 2009, 08:09 PM
Acceptable losses due to predation on unfenced livestock must be understood but once a farmer/rancher OWNS AND FENCES HIS LAND Than any losses due to predation are unacceptable!

Brent hate to disagree with you on this one but, regardless if the the animals are fenced or free ranging any predator eating livestock is fair game IMO. Most States out West operate under what is known as "Open Range" this means livestock must be fenced out and not in. Fences do not stop predators, all it does is let them catch the livestock easier. Plus if they might cause more damage to animals in the herd when they blow out through the fence or get caught up in it.

We had a ewe caught in a wire netting fence that got hung up trying to get away from coyotes. When we found her all that was left was the hind leg in the fence. We had a ewe that died as well that died giving birth, we didn't get her out of the pen that night and were going to wait till morning all that was left was the hide and the head, again coyotes got her. Again the fence and the dogs in the yard were not a deterrent for determined coyotes.

Wolves will kill more than they can eat, don't know if it is for the thrill of the kill or not. I do know however that they can always come back at a later date to finish their meal. The don't seem to have a problem eating rotting meat, like most other predators. I don't have wolves where I live but we do get the occasional mountain lion or coyote killing calves, pigs and sheep. I do however think that it isn't a far stretch to say they have some of the same habits as these other predators.

This is a pretty good site for anyone who wants to look.
"http://www.pinedaleonline.com/wolf/index.htm"

With most of the US population now living in urban areas they are becoming more out of touch about what a Rancher and Farmer goes through to get food on the consumers table. As this happens it will become more and more difficult to keep our rights to protect our property from predators that these urbanites deem cute and cuddly and that we are the invasive species. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand that the more land we give back and take out of production the more we will become Dependant on foreign countries for our food. We have already outsourced most jobs, I guess they figure we can outsource our food production as well.

hogdogs
March 17, 2009, 08:20 PM
Yes... taylorce, What I meant by it is the rancher with free range livestock on lease type parcels is not quite as able to figure the same success rate as the guy with multiple fenced parcels and livestock dogs and/or employees able to run the fence lines and pastures on routine intervals in an attempt to eliminate any possible predation.
I think we are pretty much on the same page and I bet we both know the 3 S's intimately in regard of predatory or destructive animals!;)
Brent

roy reali
March 17, 2009, 09:49 PM
I might be reading some of the posts wrong, but some seem like that they would like to see the wolf go the way of the dodo bird. As I said before, thank God our cave dwelling ancestors did have the same attitude towards wild canines.

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 10:10 PM
Funny how shooting some wolves means all wolves. No one has ever been able to kill all wolves in the entire history of our planet. However all our beaver are gone on Weitas Creek. Where have all the beaver gone? Gone to the wolves the old game warden said.

Mr. Tire, I found the article I refured to in above post.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abandons Its Wolf Delisting Rule

On September 22, 2008, the United States Department of Justice filed a motion for a voluntary remand of the final rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to designate Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves as a distinct population segment and remove them from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. If U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula grants this request, the agency would reconsider and revise the rule in response to issues raised in the lawsuit brought by Bozeman-based Earthjustice on behalf of twelve conservation organizations including Friends of the Clearwater. Concerned that even greater numbers of wolves would be killed without Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections, these plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction from Judge Molloy on July 18, 2008 that influenced the present agency position reversal, temporarily reinstated wolf ESA status, and halted transfer of wolf management from the USFWS to state wildlife departments while the case proceeded. In his opinion and order, Molloy noted that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their claims that: 1) the wolves had not met recovery criteria due to a lack of genetic exchange between their greater Yellowstone and other populations in northwest Montana and central Idaho; 2) Wyoming’s 2007 management framework was an inadequate regulatory mechanism; and 3) fall 2008 public wolf hunting seasons planned by Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming posed immediate potential harm for wolves. When the USFWS delisted gray wolves in the Northern Rockies on March 28, they asserted that wolf populations and distribution had exceeded reintroduction goals since 2002.

Even though gray wolves in the region are relisted as endangered, the insidious provisions of the ESA 10(j) clause, revised before delisting and again in effect, could greatly increase wolf susceptibility to extinction. As sanctioned by Secretary of the Interior and ex-Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne and the USFWS, this recent ESA re-interpretation permits wildlife officials of the three states to kill more gray wolves in certain circumstances because they are only protected as “experimental, non-essential populations” under the 10(j) rule. An earlier version of this exclusion from the usual, rigorous safeguards of the law eased wolf reintroductions in 1995 and 1996 and the subsequent conflicts that occurred between expanding wolf numbers and livestock interests. Under pressure from Idaho, Wyoming, a minority of hunters, and the Bush administration to further relax ESA restrictions and thus minimize wolf numbers, the USFWS on January 28, 2008 extended killing of gray wolves beyond those caught killing livestock to include state-agent hunting, even by aerial gunning, of wolves supposedly reducing the elk, deer, and other ungulate herds whose populations are above state objectives. Although elk numbers are at an all-time high throughout the region and wildlife studies have never found wolves to be the primary cause of big-game declines, each state can nonetheless kill all but 200 of the approximately 1,455 wolves that inhabit the Northern Rockies, even without public wolf hunts. Regional wolf populations are currently declining: humans have killed over 500 wolves since 66 of them were initially released and another 100 this year under the new 10(j) rule.

As demonstrated by an overwhelming majority of the comments submitted on the draft 10(j) rule by citizens and scientists, public support for wolf protection and recovery recognizes that wolves restore overall balance to ecosystems. By killing weak and sick animals and allowing recovery of riparian vegetation over-browsed by ungulates, wolves improve the strength and vitality of big-game herds and their habitat. To bolster the viability of wolf populations in the Northern Rockies, six conservation organizations and Friends of the Clearwater filed a lawsuit in January challenging the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for revision of the 10(j) regulations. On July 23, only days after halting the reclassification and delisting rule, Judge Molloy denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss this case. His order also granted the government’s request for a 60-day stay of the case until September 22, to give the involved parties time to determine how to proceed.

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 10:15 PM
Notice our elk numbers are at an " all time high" :eek:
and wolves are an expermintal, non essential population. :)

I am not sure what a "minority of hunters" means?

People should quit hunting bear with dogs in Idaho
Wolves kill six hunting dogs in attack near Kamiah
http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2008/07/24/61655.aspx


The goal was 300 or more and we have 1,400 plus. (900 3 or 4 years ago- then 1, 200, now 1,400 plus. The Yellowstone wolf- Montana, Wyoming and Idaho are all related, because they were all shipped in from Canada; around 1995 or so in Idaho.

But we have or had? an Idaho wolf- he is smaller and different from the Canada wolf.

How many wolves are the goal? Does the goal constantly change?
How many wolves are too many? What about the pre- canadian Idaho wolf?
What will happen to him?

Warning this link may haunt you. It shows a moose in deep snow that can not get away from this wolf pack being eaten alive. It haunts me. 4 pictures ...

http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2007/02/14/49953.aspx

mtnm
March 17, 2009, 11:56 PM
We dont need a Canadian wolf when we already had an Idaho wolf.

My point was we should take care of our endangered Idaho wolf.
All of Idaho got along with him.

I'm not sure how that can be done now-
but what we did is a darn shame.

...if it was about the wolf- the Idaho wolf would be going strong.


GR, there was no worry about the native wolf here. They lived way out and avoided humans. They didn't run in large packs and if you were lucky enough to see one it was a thrill. Up in the Kelly Creek district above the North Fork of the Clearwater River is where you might find one...for a second. These wolves lived as reclusive as possible. Who knows who decided it was necessary to reintroduce the Canadian Grey substitute, I guarantee it wasn't an Idaho, Montana or Wyoming native. People who like to "think" about how wonderful and pristine it would be to reintroduce predators to someone elses backyard is what happened. Most of those people will never even come to our state!
Like I already said in a previous post, the Canadian Grey is aggressive and doesn't hesitate to eliminate any canine not of it's individual pack, including the smaller more isolated native wolf. You can guess what has happened to our native wolves, killed by the new Canadian wolf! Kinda like shooting yourself in the foot, if you are worried about an animal population going extinct.

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?t=849&page=3

hogdogs
March 18, 2009, 02:42 AM
I think I and the others seeking a population control measure of various degrees have made all the points a logical person would need... Of course there will always be some illogical folks that cannot see the needs...
Brent

roy reali
March 18, 2009, 07:42 AM
Is there some sort of personal vendetta against wolves here? If they are harming someone's cattle or pets or are attacking people then yes, take them out. If they are causing no harm, leave'em be. It doesn't take writing a dissertation to make this point. Unless, these is some sort virulent feelings towards these creatures.

L_Killkenny
March 18, 2009, 08:15 AM
The question to your answer Roy is yes. There is and for some there always will be. No one here has argued protection or not killing problem critters but all we have asked for is some fact and we get internet rumor. 2-3000 wolves is not many.

Let's look at the numbers of wolves as compared to Mt. Lions. Estimates put 5000 lions in California and 6000 in Colorado. Those numbers are more than likely low but I stopped looking after finding a couple numbers. They do dwarf the numbers of wolves in the lower 48 and that's only 2 states. We know they are there, they are bigger than wolves, we read on a regular basis about the problems and that info is all over the Internet and easy to find. I'm betting that nationwide the numbers of Mt.Lions is 25 times that of the wolf. Lions sound like a heck of a lot bigger problem the wolves. The wolf problem is small fry.

Some people cry wolf and others get a tingly and scared as far away as Florida. :confused:

taylorce1
March 18, 2009, 08:45 AM
Mountain Lions are not nearly the problem as wolves. Cats are more solitary, they don't run in packs. They will only kill one animal at a time, not wound a few and then feed on the ones that go down first. Cats have fewer offspring than a pack of wolves. Mountain lions will not usually go after animals much larger than a deer; the same can't be said for wolves. Don't get me wrong lions can be a problem but they are not federally protected and can be dealt with.

Just as you believe the lion numbers are not correct many of us believe the same about wolf numbers. It is very hard to get a physical count on animals from the air when they are under a canopy of trees. Just like elk, deer, and moose counts I'm sure they all got a fudge factor worked in.

My question is they met the original numbers for sustainable breeding pairs, so why keep changing the rules every time they are about to be delisted? Taking the ability to control the population of wolves away from the States that have them is just going to anger the people who live within them. People will be more accepting of the wolf as soon as the States can have control and not the Feds.

Flat Tire
March 18, 2009, 09:50 AM
In Idaho the "Gov" Butch Otter says he wants the first available wolf tag. That is fine with me as long as there are more to follow- And even when the wolf was an "endangered species" the rule was if you could prove there was mixed tracks with your cattle, livestock or pets you had the right to remove the wolf from this earth. The first I heard of wolves in my backyard was in Fairfield, Idaho about 6 or 7 years ago. There was a pack that had moved in to the Soldier Mtn area. The only thing I remember is Fish & Game was offering a reward for information for who shot 2 wolves. Fairfield is a small town and I think they got scared by all the coverage and stopped shooting the wolves. The wolves stayed in that area and have hurt the deer and elk heards. Butch Otter has a cabin by Anderson Ranch (very close to Fairfield) so he has dealt with this from the beginning.

The thing is when you first hear about the wolves it is no big deal. When you see them in action you think, how in hell can you control that.

Art Eatman
March 18, 2009, 10:19 AM
roy reali, I think you're misreading the general consensus. Few are totally against having some wolves around. The repulsion is of the governmental system for how the whole deal is handled; it's seen as being unfair to people on the ground in wolf territory.

When your decisions and actions make people think they've been unfairly treated, you're gonna get really strong opposition and strong emotions. When you hit people in their billfolds, the normal reaction is to hit back.

Gbro
March 18, 2009, 01:43 PM
mtnm posted,
Warning this link may haunt you. It shows a moose in deep snow that can not get away from this wolf pack being eaten alive. It haunts me. 4 pictures ...

I have read with great interest all of your posts on this thread. However this one statement spoils all the rest.
The predator is a fierce and powerful animal and has been doing what they do since the dawn of Creation.
What I see when I looked at those pictures is, This is the same way it was done for thousands of years. Nothing has changed.
Some could debate the health of the animal in the pictures, but to me that is all that could be debated. Great pictures of The Natural World.
Nature is cruel compared to what we desire to be our standard. However Man can be just as fierce and savage.

Please control your emotions! Leave uncontrolled emotions for the bunny huggers.

taylorce1
March 18, 2009, 02:17 PM
Warning this link may haunt you. It shows a moose in deep snow that can not get away from this wolf pack being eaten alive. It haunts me. 4 pictures ...


Link finally worked for me and I can tell you that those pictures were not taken in either MT or ID. IIRC and I'll do a little more research to prove it those pictures were taken in Canada, in fact they were taken on an island if memory serves. That was a known pack that was being studied, and all the pictures were taken from a survey aircraft.

The Bull Moose in the picture other than being tired and worn out from the wolves harassing it appears to very healthy. I’ve been known to post things of questionable fact, but usually I put some disclaimer with it. I’m not saying that mtnm posted anything that she thought was fact. From reading the post below the pictures, that these pictures were not very well researched and the spin was put on them to further someones agenda.

http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/photo_essay/photo_essay/moosekill.html
Foud the link to the real story.

mtnm
March 18, 2009, 03:16 PM
Thank you for the correction. I always like to know when I am out of balance.

I am the female wife of the Game Warden, BTW. :)

taylorce1
March 18, 2009, 03:21 PM
I am the female wife of the Game Warden, BTW.

I stand corrected as well!:)

hogdogs
March 18, 2009, 03:22 PM
OH CRAP!!!! Gotta watch what i say!:eek: seriously G.W.'s Are usually the ones I like to pick brain on!
I also think that her warning of viciousness of the link and wolves eating a still living animal were a little sarcastic warning to the few who seem to think we all want total eradication of the wolf when in fact most of us want states to be allowed to manage their own resources and serve their residents!
IBTL.... Last one for this page...
Brent

mtnm
March 18, 2009, 03:36 PM
...oh darn, but he's been retired for 10 years... oops I blew it again. :p

The predator is a fierce and powerful animal and has been doing what they do since the dawn of Creation.
What I see when I looked at those pictures is, This is the same way it was done for thousands of years.

I have gotten that reaction before. It always mystifies me, BTW. My picture comment probablly out of place on a board like this one, but I mostly post on Horse dicussion boards- with kids- LOL. :p

Yeah- Brent taught me how to kill a wildhog with a knife yesterday.
You dont learn that on Horse boards. LOL.

Captian Charlie invited us over from the John Lyons board... so I came and lurked. I had to post in this thread though, because I have so much to say. :D

You guys are great you know.

i have read with great interest all of your posts on this thread. However this one statement spoils all the rest.

Thank you I will remember that. :) My forum friends teach me how to write a better arguement each time. I thought about it and perhaps that disclaimer is just like carrying in church? Mostly you dont need it and you hope you never will. You may think you are talking to a guy who is really a girl on the net - or vice versa- and one never knows who will read your posts.

My husband spent his entire career trying to protect the Idaho grizzly. He failed. I want to protect the Idaho wolf. It is a loosing battle too.

May you guys alway have the desire of your heart.
You are a great bunch of people. ;)

Art Eatman
March 18, 2009, 05:34 PM
Hokay. Full up. This will all show up again, never fear. :D

Thanks to all.

Art