PDA

View Full Version : Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population


Alaska444
July 7, 2012, 09:18 PM
I am sitting here watching a pro-wolf propaganda show following wolves in WA state Cascade mountains. They also have one of these eco folks going out on a wolf hunt in Idaho.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-schedule...137313.40772.0

Nothing wrong with promoting the health and welfare of nature, but what irks me is that they are not telling the true story of the "wolf disaster" here in Idaho and why hunting has to be done to keep them from decimating the other large game animals. Oh well, you can't promote your version of events by telling the truth!!

I suspect WA state which is dominated politically by ultra liberal politicians will never take the steps to protect nature from this invasive species. Maybe we can send a few packs down to Sacramento so that they can enjoy these destructive critters as well.

The question will remain in the future whether this ultraliberal, environmental dominated state will control the wolf population as other states such as Idaho and Montana do through hunting?

Crosshair
July 7, 2012, 10:00 PM
You only have two "yes" options. "Nature" is already taking its course.:p Personal friend has family from WA. Lots of SSS going on there already. Got to go on a "Please put the camera away" off-road road trip to see the countryside. Never saw any carcases myself, though there apparently was enough of the possibility.

There needs to be management and if people are so insistent then let them start taking up a collection to compensate people for damage caused by wolves.

Sure Shot Mc Gee
July 7, 2012, 10:34 PM
So what would you have us comment on. Read your statement but no question asked of us to reply to. Perhaps if your were to tweak your thread a bit. We could then comment on it. Unless you prefer not to.

Alaska444
July 7, 2012, 10:52 PM
Fair enough, I added a question at the end which is really reflected in the poll. I believe it will be very hard for WA state to reconcile their political and environmental beliefs against the reality of the Mackenzie Valley wolves decimation of other game animals.

mete
July 8, 2012, 03:10 AM
Reality ??
The was a recent case in Sweden where a zookeepr was killed by the wolves. The head of the zoo was confused he said that wolves weren't dangerous !:eek: Whether they are in a zoo or in the wild they're not dangerous .He couldn't understand how this happened.
They are ,of course , predators and very efficient ones .Those zoo visiters were sometimes brought into the wolf enclosure where they could feed and pet them.
That's the problem , there are the tree huggers with Disney mentality and they often get into positions of authority.I don't know how to deal with them ,their ideas are so bizzare.:rolleyes:
I didn't add a link becasue the zookeeper's comments are in Swedish and I had to get someone to translate.You could find the story on Swedish papers in English.

FrankenMauser
July 8, 2012, 06:04 AM
Washington state includes some of the wolves' historic habitat. Calling them an invasive species is incorrect.

And...
Nothing wrong with promoting the health and welfare of nature, but what irks me is that they are not telling the true story of the "wolf disaster" here in Idaho and why hunting has to be done to keep them from decimating the other large game animals. Oh well, you can't promote your version of events by telling the truth!!
The proper term would be "human disaster". The only reason the big game animals are having such a hard time, is because humans have taken over all of their prime habitat and pushed them into the mountains. Elk and Deer are plains game, not mountain dwellers. They barely scrape by with that kind of existence. So, adding such a fantastic pack-hunting predator to the mix upsets the already unnatural and precarious "balance". Your blame is ill-placed.

Art Eatman
July 8, 2012, 08:22 AM
I note that there is one thing for which there is an iron-clad guarantee about people: They won't go away. They also have this bad habit of agribusiness, and, as well, enjoy hunting. In order to do either, they control whatever forms of predation which have negative impacts.

Re-introduction of a predator creates conflict. Unfortunately, those supporting re-introduction are rarely either farmer/rancher types nor do they hunt. Their lives and incomes don't see negative impact.

cornbush
July 8, 2012, 09:21 AM
I think wolves are great, they are beautiful, adapt very well and extremely efficient.
I also think that they should never have been reintroduced.
When I lived in Idaho I regularly saw wolves where there "were no wolves".
There was a lot of shoot, shovel, and shut up that happened, radio collars went on a truck at the local truck stop.
If the US Fish and Wildlife wants wolves back how about we release them in DC, thats where the majority of the people who make the decisions are, they wanted them...........

If Washington doesn't manage their wolves they are headed for a disaster just like Idaho.

Alaska444
July 8, 2012, 03:34 PM
Today, 07:21 AM #8
cornbush
Senior Member

Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: The retarded place below Idaho
Posts: 1,258
I think wolves are great, they are beautiful, adapt very well and extremely efficient.
I also think that they should never have been reintroduced.
When I lived in Idaho I regularly saw wolves where there "were no wolves".
There was a lot of shoot, shovel, and shut up that happened, radio collars went on a truck at the local truck stop.
If the US Fish and Wildlife wants wolves back how about we release them in DC, thats where the majority of the people who make the decisions are, they wanted them...........

If Washington doesn't manage their wolves they are headed for a disaster just like Idaho.
__________________
The best shot I ever made was an accident

Wolves are incredible creatures, but they are also one of natures most efficient killing machines. The Discovery channel show promotes a very unrealistic view of them as simple cute little dogs and who doesn't like their dog.

However, in reality, they are some of the most aggressive killing machines known. Even grizzly bears at times fall victim to wolves which has been well documented.

The reality further is that the Feds didn't reintroduce the native wolf, they introduced and invasive, massive wolf that is the most aggressive of all the wolf subspecies. Caribou in larger numbers and more open terrain have a significant advantage over the slower moving elk in the Rockies.

The elk populations are dramatically dropping and yes, it is indeed an Idaho wolf disaster. Idaho, WY, MT all have the political and reality based policies that they must control this apex predator which also harbors and spreads deadly parasites that is a public health issue to people as well. When the wolf population in WA state becomes an issue, I have serious doubts that they will be able to muster the political will to control this creature.

In the future, we will hear of the Washington wolf disaster and they will do nothing to prevent it. Just my hunch but if shows like the one above are not met by the reality of the true story, WA state will be toast as far as all of the other game animals.

Hansam
July 8, 2012, 03:38 PM
I like wolves. In fact I LOVE wolves! They're gorgeous animals that were at the top of the food chain till humans arrived. I've camped many times where I've heard the howls of wolves and loved hearing it.

That said I've also known people who have suffered loss because of wolves in northern WI. I know the kind of damage that they can cause and how much of an aggravation they can be to farmers and land owners where there are wolves.

So I support management of the wolf population. I'm not a part of the crowd that believes all wolves should be wiped out but I do believe that wolves should be managed. To allow them to just breed uncontrolled is irresponsible. A managed hunting program (much like what is in place for deer) would be wise and responsible.

Alaska444
July 8, 2012, 04:13 PM
Today, 04:04 AM #6
FrankenMauser
Senior Member

Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Mormonville
Posts: 4,407
Washington state includes some of the wolves' historic habitat. Calling them an invasive species is incorrect.

And...
Quote:
Nothing wrong with promoting the health and welfare of nature, but what irks me is that they are not telling the true story of the "wolf disaster" here in Idaho and why hunting has to be done to keep them from decimating the other large game animals. Oh well, you can't promote your version of events by telling the truth!!
The proper term would be "human disaster". The only reason the big game animals are having such a hard time, is because humans have taken over all of their prime habitat and pushed them into the mountains. Elk and Deer are plains game, not mountain dwellers. They barely scrape by with that kind of existence. So, adding such a fantastic pack-hunting predator to the mix upsets the already unnatural and precarious "balance". Your blame is ill-placed.
__________________
-Long Winded Voice of Reason..... or something...


Dear Frankenmauser, interestingly, Idaho is nearly 1/3 plains and according to your theory, that is where the elk should be flourishing the most. However, the plains counties in Idaho are the ones that have the worst elk depredation from wolves with severely restricted elk hunting due solely to the wolf populations in those areas. In the past, they were the areas with the greatest elk populations prior to the wolf "reintroduction program."

In addition, elk have thrived in the mountain regions of Idaho, so not sure where you are getting your speculations about elk and where they do and don't thrive.

We don't need to look only at the wolf experiment in the US, most of the literature and research on the effects of wolves has come from Finland, Russia and Sweden where native human populations suffered high levels of hydatid disease that was only controlled by a wolf eradication program in the 1970's.

I first learned about hydatid disease in medical school. In Alaska, most cases occurred from dogs as the native host for this parasite. Today, hydatid disease is endemic in the wolf population with over 2/3rds of wolves tested in Idaho infected with this same disease that causes human misery as well.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/01/10/two-thirds-of-idaho-wolf-carcasses-examined-have-thousands-of-hydatid-disease-tapeworms/

Please take some time to learn of all of the issues involved in these invasive wolf subspecies that belongs on the tundra, not in the Rockies. Your statement simply reflect the prevailing propaganda I mentioned in the above TV show. If we are going to discuss the wolf as US population, lets deal in facts, not fiction.

Alaska444
July 8, 2012, 04:18 PM
Today, 07:21 AM #8
cornbush
Senior Member

Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: The retarded place below Idaho
Posts: 1,258
I think wolves are great, they are beautiful, adapt very well and extremely efficient.
I also think that they should never have been reintroduced.
When I lived in Idaho I regularly saw wolves where there "were no wolves".
There was a lot of shoot, shovel, and shut up that happened, radio collars went on a truck at the local truck stop.
If the US Fish and Wildlife wants wolves back how about we release them in DC, thats where the majority of the people who make the decisions are, they wanted them...........

If Washington doesn't manage their wolves they are headed for a disaster just like Idaho.
__________________
The best shot I ever made was an accident


Dear cornbush, that is exactly the issue. The native Idaho wolf is now extinct. Not from human encroachment, man and wolf in Idaho do have a storied past, but when kept in check, the wolves hunted mainly small game and were not aggressive like the Mackenzie Valley wolf.

Since the Feds introduced this invasive subspecies, the native Idaho wolf is now completely extinct despite making a recovery prior to this as you note seeing them yourself. Many of my friends here in Idaho also saw the native wolf from time to time. Not any longer.

FrankenMauser
July 8, 2012, 07:16 PM
Dear Frankenmauser, interestingly, Idaho is nearly 1/3 plains and according to your theory, that is where the elk should be flourishing the most. However, the plains counties in Idaho are the ones that have the worst elk depredation from wolves with severely restricted elk hunting due solely to the wolf populations in those areas. In the past, they were the areas with the greatest elk populations prior to the wolf "reintroduction program."

The Elk should be flourishing there, but they can't. The land has been taken over by farmers. Places where they have lost the most habitat are the places they suffer the most depredation. These are the places where the natural balance has been upset the most.

I'm not saying we should all start hugging trees and protecting the wolves. As long as humans think they can control everything around them, "natural balance" will continue to be an imaginary concept.

Two of my favorite quotes comes to mind, both from the same book...
"An artificial condition had created the surplus {of predators} ... and it could only be corrected by artificial means."
And
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."

Humans caused this problem. Now, we're stuck in a position where we must decide if attempting to create an artificial balance with the predators will work, or if extirpating the species will create an artificial balance that is easier to maintain. As long as humans attempt to control it, it remains an artificial condition. Nature will not be balanced until the population of two-legged predators is brought down to a natural level. (Not good, since we're an invasive species...)

Alaska444
July 9, 2012, 01:20 AM
Dear Frankenmauser,

Not what I stated. I said that an area of Idaho in the plains has historically had high levels of elk UNTIL the wolves took over. I was speaking to one of my friends tonight who noted studies by an elk foundation finding the government numbers completely wrong. Instead of 700 Idaho wolves, they found over 3000.

I will try to find the link to the study. Your argument further defies what we know from the Bible that God created the earth and then put man in charge giving us dominion over all creatures. The eco argument fails because they remove man from the "natural" world, when in fact, God made the earth for man to inhabit and have dominion over it. The wolves in Idaho don't belong here and we created that mess.

Predation of wolves is our only way to manage the entire ecosystem at this time.

FrankenMauser
July 9, 2012, 01:37 AM
I will try to find the link to the study. Your argument further defies what we know from the Bible that God created the earth and then put man in charge giving us dominion over all creatures. The eco argument fails because they remove man from the "natural" world, when in fact, God made the earth for man to inhabit and have dominion over it. The wolves in Idaho don't belong here and we created that mess.

Not everyone shares the same religious beliefs. I don't hold your belief in God against you. So, don't hold my agnostic beliefs against me.

Plus... scientific evidence shows us that humans migrated to this continent at the same time as the wolves. I think a peaceful co-existence agreement might be more appropriate than extirpation or citing a single religious doctrine* for "dominion" over everything. ;)


*(There are more than 20 major religions on the Earth with at least 1 million members, each; and more than 3,500 distinctly recognized religions, total. The great majority of those religions, including most Native Americans, believe that they were placed here as care-takers or even at a lower hierarchy than the animals. In addition, there are more than 1 BILLION people on the Earth, that do not claim religious affiliation, and/or a belief in a God or Gods. Who are you to decide that only your religious beliefs should be followed to facilitate the handling of this matter?)

Alaska444
July 9, 2012, 01:54 AM
Man is part of the "natural" world even though the eco folks deny that simple fact. We also have dominion whether folks want to deny that reality as well.

The Mackenzie Valley wolves belong in the Mackenzie valley and are in balance with the caribou and other critters in that area. They do not obtain the same balance in the Rocky Mountain regions. They are too big, too aggressive and carry too much disease.

Perhaps you don't live an affected area, but I do. The debate in our neck of the woods is not theoretical at all.

http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Wolf-populations-getting-closer-to-Coeur-dAlene-161435005.html

Art Eatman
July 9, 2012, 07:49 AM
Doesn't matter whether one is religious or atheistic: We are but a part of nature (Biology applies to all life of whatever sort) and the key fact is quite simple: Nature bats last.

As tool users, we dominate all other life on the planet. Simple as that. And, having accomplished that, we create some form of government so that some few can dominate the rest of us. It's what we do, and is merely a different form of predation. Congress and Wall Street come to mind.

Okay, so then we start arguing and squabbling about right and wrong as such moral issues pertain to animals. It's more of what we do.

Which is an around the shrubs and brush way of going back to wolves.

I guess one of my questions has to do with how do we know about comparative behavior of re-introduced wolves versus the original wolves. And, why is it that way?

From my reading, it seems that the 1800s saw more commentary about wolves in forested areas of the west, moreso than in the plains. The coyote was first called the "prairie wolf", as he was far more common there than the wolf. Wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin apparently are more woodland creatures than open-country creatures.

I dunno.

What I do know as a moderator who has read umpteen and a half threads about wolves is that there are many sincere and honest folks in conflict about what wolves are, how they behave, and what we should do to deal with both the wolf problem and the people problem.

Looks like we need a few dozen Farley Mowats who are more objective in their assessments but who are willing to spend the time in study.

So y'all offer a few more comments and then we'll close this go-round on the subject.

ZeroJunk
July 9, 2012, 09:37 AM
Human hunters are right in the thick of the ecological battle and have been for a couple of million years. Human farmers have been in the ecological battle for the last few thousand years. I have a degree in biology and am aware of enviornmentalist's feelings about these issues and can't say that I disagree with some of them. But, you are not going to change the human equation so I don't know that there is much point in dreaming about it.

If the elk/deer were overpopulated in an area causing disease and starvation then reintroduction of wolves would make sense.

But, I have not read nor have I witnessed in the areas that I hunt any evidence of overpopulation with the elk being quite fat and healthy.

So were the wolves reintroduced for some purpose or just romantic nostalgia for the way some enviornmentalists think things ought to be.

Bottom line, I am an elk hunter. The wolves are in competition with me hunting a herd that is declining because of the wolves according to anybody who is in the business of hunting them.

Does that effect my judgement on the issue ? Sure.

Husqvarna
July 9, 2012, 10:05 AM
Re Mete, I am Swedish I think he said that those wolves weren't dangerous, they where as semi domesticated as wolves can get, a friend of the family has been in with the same pack and given them massages (she is a human and horse/dog massuese). i think it is wrong to judge the fate of wolves based on the behaviour of captured animals, I mean there are thousands of predators in private captivity in the Us with several incidents we don't kill tigers, lions and chimps because of that.

After the initial reports which just stated the basics it has come forth that there was a recent incident a short while back where a teenager in a group got jumped but the zookeepers warded the wolves of so I dunno, one escaped a couple of years ago and when they found it an old lady was sitting on a parkbench feeding it cookies:eek:

the last person before that zookeeper that was killed was killed over a 100 years ago by a pet wolf. Bears have killed several people and maimed others regularly but bears aren't hated nor loved, wolfes get more love and hate for some reason


Wolves are a very hot topic in Sweden right now, the population started to grow recently after being on the brink of destruction, there are loads of conspiracy theories that animal rights activists planted wolfs to give them a boom, we get the occasional russian wanderer but Sweden is practically landlocked so that can't be the whole truth. in recent months 3 ranges close to me has been vandalized/burned down by those frekkin lunatics:mad: and i am not a wolf hater, i accept them growing in numbers but over the whole of Sweden, I live in one of the two states that has got several packs. i got to see a small pack a few years ago and it was majestic. my brother in law sprinted like Ussain Bolt to get his dog that was running towards them

we got to hunt them a couple of years ago but it was stopped again, we now have a couple of hundred but only on a small part of the country, that is the main problem, the saami people (our "natives) have special rules and wolves near them and their reindeerherding business ( which is also heavily reliant on gov subs) are killed or moved)

the few we got has started to become a nuisance, plenty of hunting dogs and sheep killed, a friend who has got cows, sheep and goats now have a lama and a donkey for protection:D.

hunting has gone down somewhat, people are afraid to let their dogs go and the moose population has had a dip

Husqvarna
July 9, 2012, 10:13 AM
Art I think you could even narrow it down more, wolves (atleast here) seems to be pine/fir forest animals. maybe just anecdotal but roedeers are still like rats even thou we got more and more lynx and the wild boar is still here

Alaska444
July 9, 2012, 12:38 PM
Art, the two subspecies are quite different. The Mackenzie Valley wolf is the largest wolf subspecies and the native Idaho wolf was much smaller, more solitary and much less aggressive. Not understanding that there are significant differences in the wolf subspecies is tantamount to ignoring the differences in the dog subspecies.

If folks think an Irish wolf hound is the same as a chiwawa, then I have a swamp to sell them in Arizona. Here is an excellent comparison of the two subspecies. The Feds gave us the Great Dane of wolves to replace what had been here. We have been duped. That makes the Federally implanted "reintroduced" wolf an invasive subspecies. It just doesn't belong in this ecosystem. Folks that claim to be so understanding of ecology show themselves ignorant of this detail. That is the entire debate. The Mackenzie Valley wolf belongs in the Mackenzie Valley, not the Rocky Mountains.

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/01/21/native-rocky-mountain-wolves-v-introduced-canadian-gray-wolves/

buck460XVR
July 9, 2012, 12:54 PM
The facts are....wolves are here to stay. All those "Little Red Riding Hoods" need to get over it. While I feel wolves have a place in our ecosystem, I also believe they need to be controlled to within practical numbers and need to be hunted enough to regain their fear of man. There can be a balance, even tho we humans have put it askew. Those wanting to kill them all are just selfish and greedy. Statements such as "they're killing all of OUR elk!", is a prime example. As for the bible telling us to rule over all the animals of the earth, one needs to remember, God didn't write the bible, man did.....and greedy men edited it's text. There are many other things the bible tells us, that now, as modern educated men, we know are not to be taken literally. Besides, the last definition I saw of ruling said nuttin' at all about killin'. If you really believe in God and the bible, you should realize that God created wolves for a purpose and when they kill wild game or even domestic livestock, they are only doing what evolution and the good Lord intended for them to do. Man is not God, nor is he nature..........nor does nature need to take a backseat to man. Without nature there will be no man.

Alaska444
July 9, 2012, 01:11 PM
Today, 10:54 AM #22
buck460XVR
Senior Member

Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 549
The facts are....wolves are here to stay. All those "Little Red Riding Hoods" need to get over it. While I feel wolves have a place in our ecosystem, I also believe they need to be controlled to within practical numbers and need to be hunted enough to regain their fear of man. There can be a balance, even tho we humans have put it askew. Those wanting to kill them all are just selfish and greedy. Statements such as "they're killing all of OUR elk!", is a prime example. As for the bible telling us to rule over all the animals of the earth, one needs to remember, God didn't write the bible, man did.....and greedy men edited it's text. There are many other things the bible tells us, that now, as modern educated men, we know are not to be taken literally. Besides, the last definition I saw of ruling said nuttin' at all about killin'. If you really believe in God and the bible, you should realize that God created wolves for a purpose and when they kill wild game or even domestic livestock, they are only doing what evolution and the good Lord intended for them to do. Man is not God, nor is he nature..........nor does nature need to take a backseat to man. Without nature there will be no man.


Now, back to the topic, man has placed many invasive species in new environments for alleged benefit that has turned into ecological disasters. Despite the deep rooted propaganda surrounding wolves, they are reeking an ecological disaster across the northern Rocky Mountains. Not even the 9th circuit court or Obama could stay in that propaganda driven denial any longer.

The public health consequences of placing wolves here where they don't belong as an invasive subspecies designed to run down ill caribou instead of slower deer and elk is ending in the decimation of elk and deer in these infected areas. In addition, all of the wild game in these areas are now becoming infected with hydatid cysts which also infect people.

Look up the history of Finland's war against wolves where they hunted them down with AK47's from helicopters in the 1970's. The mindset that man is the invading species is a bunch of baloney to say it mildly. We have the responsibility to keep in check this terrible experiment with this large, aggressive and dangerous beast that has gone terribly wrong from the beginning. Instead of spouting propaganda, go dig into the history of the wolf in Finland and juxtapose that experience with what we shall have in the future here if we do not aggressively control this creature's population density.

buck460XVR
July 9, 2012, 05:32 PM
they are reeking an ecological disaster across the northern Rocky Mountains. Not even the 9th circuit court or Obama could stay in that propaganda driven denial any longer.

The public health consequences of placing wolves here where they don't belong as an invasive subspecies designed to run down ill caribou instead of slower deer and elk is ending in the decimation of elk and deer in these infected areas. In addition, all of the wild game in these areas are now becoming infected with hydatid cysts which also infect people.

The mindset that man is the invading species is a bunch of baloney to say it mildly. We have the responsibility to keep in check this terrible experiment with this large, aggressive and dangerous beast that has gone terribly wrong from the beginning.

.....all I can say is wow. No emotion affecting judgement there. Sounds more like a sci-fi horror film than a discussion about wolves. :rolleyes:

I have read and reserached all of the links you have posted in this thread. They are the same ones you post everytime you get into your rant about wolves and the risk they impose on little girls in red jackets. You ask us to get real, while you yourself preach fire and brimestone about how we are all gonna die from the mere presence of the big bad wolf. I doubt if any knowledgeable person that posts in a hunting forum will want wolf populations to go unchecked. Read my post, I have no problem with a legitimate hunting season on them. But I also believe there is a legitimate reason to have them in our ecosystem. Guess you musta missed that.

Alaska444
July 9, 2012, 05:46 PM
Dear Buck,

Sorry you are taking an emotional view of this thread. Simple question, should WA state control the growing wolf population. Looks like the majority of folks answer in the affirmative. Shouldn't be a surprise that the Feds no longer consider the native Rocky Mountain wolf endangered any longer (canus lupus irremotus) when in reality the Mackenzie Valley wolf (canus lupus occidentalis (http://www.cosmosmith.com/mackenzie_valley_wolves.asp)) that they implanted here has put it into extinction. I guess if you are extinct, you are no longer endangered.

I guess that means we will simply agree to disagree. By the way, do you live in any of the infected areas? For me, this is not theoretical or emotional but the cold hard facts that wolves in large numbers are now the reality of the places I go such as the Bull River in MT, the St. Joe in Idaho and all the places in the northern Idaho panhandle.

Here, you need to understand the risk of hydatid disease and take precautions. In addition, several dogs have been killed in the last couple of years. Yeah, yeah, yeah, emotional response all right my friend. Glad I live in a state that recognizes the dangers of this invasive subspecies and is doing something to counteract the out of control Feds. If you don't have any of these beasts in your backyard yet, maybe you can ask Uncle Sam to send you some.

Have a nice day and just agree to disagree.

Alaska444
July 9, 2012, 06:00 PM
Native Rocky Mountain wolf is now extinct at the hands of the Feds wolf "reintroduction" program. Several of my friends, one a rancher born, and raised here in northern Idaho used to see this wolf very frequently on his property. That is until the Feds "reintroduced" the Mackenzie Valley wolf which has brought this subspecies native wolf into extinction.

Canis lupus crassodon (Vancouver Island Wolf-ENDANGERED)
Canis lupus fuscus (Cascade Mountains Wolf-EXTINCT)
Canis lupus hudsonicus (Hudson Bay Wolf-ENDANGERED)
Canis lupus irremotus (Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf-EXTINCT)
Canis lupus labradorius (Labrador Wolf-ENDANGERED)

http://canislupus101.blogspot.com/p/wolf-species.html

Here is an excellent commentary and summary of these two subspecies and the impact on the people that now live with this experiment gone wrong.

http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/Editorial_Failed_Wolf_Experiment_2.pdf

cornbush
July 9, 2012, 06:10 PM
Religion, bashing, bickering and picking each other apart........ ya this one is done

langenc
July 9, 2012, 10:16 PM
Id expect the population of wolves in WA and ID are way over the 'target pop' set by CITES when the wolves were listed, probably in the 70s. 6-8 times that population 'goal' that they all agreed on.

In MI there are officially 637, if I recall correctly. Many say it is about 3x that many. In WI, I dont know. Perhaps someone could chime im.

The 'goal' for MI and WI was 100 wolves. When MI should attempt to set a season the weirdos will think the sky is falling.

The best thing we can do in MI is send the wolves back to the HILLS- Irish Hills, Rochester Hills, and Farmington Hills and see how they fit in!!

Alaska444
July 10, 2012, 12:56 AM
The data on wolves in the Rockies is that they take 40-50 elk for each wolf each year. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what kind of impact that has on the elk population.

Many of these kills are left to rot without eating in what the scientists call thrill kills just for the fun of it.

Strafer Gott
July 10, 2012, 09:24 AM
The introduction , not re-introduction, of this particular species is the problem.
This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
If the tree huggers can't get a handle on this, they need to go hug poison ivy.
After the plate is clean of elk and deer, what do you suppose the super wolves will hunt next?

Alaska444
July 10, 2012, 11:32 AM
Today, 07:24 AM #30
Strafer Gott
Senior Member

Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 207
The introduction , not re-introduction, of this particular species is the problem.
This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population.
If the tree huggers can't get a handle on this, they need to go hug poison ivy.
After the plate is clean of elk and deer, what do you suppose the super wolves will hunt next?

+1 Strafer Gott, go hug poison ivy. LOL.:eek:

Buzzcook
July 10, 2012, 04:32 PM
Alaska444: Washington state does have a wolf management plan.

The people that keep crying wolf need to get a grip.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/
The purpose of the plan is to ensure the reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington and to encourage social tolerance for the species by addressing and reducing conflicts. Goals of the plan are to:

Restore the wolf population in Washington to a self-sustaining size and geographic distribution that will result in wolves having a high probability of persisting in the state through the foreseeable future (>50-100 years).

Manage wolf-livestock conflicts in a way that minimizes livestock losses, while at the same time not negatively impacting the recovery or long-term perpetuation of a sustainable wolf population.

Maintain healthy and robust ungulate populations in the state that provide abundant prey for wolves and other predators as well as ample harvest opportunities for hunters.

Develop public understanding of the conservation and management needs of wolves in Washington, thereby promoting the public’s coexistence with the species.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00001/july2011_final_recommended_wolf_plan.pdf

While the number of livestock killed by wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming has generally increased over time as wolf numbers have grown, these are small compared to losses caused by coyotes, cougars, bobcats, dogs, bears, foxes, eagles, and other predators. Coyotes and other predators were responsible for almost all of the losses in which the predator was identified (98.8% of the cattle losses and 99.4% of the sheep losses) during 2004 and 2005; wolves were responsible for 1.8% and 0.6% of the losses

And yes the plan includes...
Lethal Removal

Lethal control of wolves may be necessary to resolve repeated wolf-livestock conflicts and is performed to remove problem animals that jeopardize public tolerance for overall wolf recovery. Large numbers of wolves have been killed in control actions in both the northern Rocky Mountain states (1,517 wolves from 1987 to 2010, with 7-16% of the population removed annually since 2002; Table 5) and Great Lakes states (3,145 wolves from 1978 to 2008, with 3-4% of the population removed annually; (Table 6) during the recovery of wolf populations. While federally listed, most lethal control of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain states was performed by wildlife agency staff. As wolves became more common, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gradually loosened restrictions on this activity to allow increased take by agency staff and private citizens with a federal permit (Fritts et al. 1992, Bangs et al. 2006). In Washington, if wolves are federally listed in any part of the state, WDFW would consult with and coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any lethal removal proposal to ensure consistency with federal law.
In Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, agency decisions to lethally remove wolves have been made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account specific factors such as a pack’s size and conflict history, status and distribution of natural prey in the area, season, age and class of livestock, success or failure of non-lethal tools, and potential for future losses (Sime et al. 2007). Where lethal removal is deemed necessary, incremental control is usually attempted, with one or two offending animals removed initially. If depredations continue, additional animals may be killed. Stepwise incremental control can result in the eventual elimination of entire packs if wolves repeatedly depredate livestock (Sime et al. 2007).
Lethal control of wolves by agency staff can have the advantages of being swift, effective, and tightly regulated. The benefits of allowing lethal removal by livestock producers are that offending wolves are more likely to be targeted, it can eliminate the need for agency control, shooting at wolves may teach them and other pack members to be more wary of humans and to avoid areas of high human activity, it allows producers to address their own problems, and it may reduce animosity toward government agencies and personnel (Bangs et al. 2006). Drawbacks of lethal control are that it is always controversial among a sizeable segment of the public, depredation may recur, there is uncertainty whether the wolves killed were the offending animals, wolves may respond by becoming more active at night to avoid people, it can be costly when performed by agencies, and it is open to abuse when conducted by the public, thereby requiring law enforcement follow-up (Fritts et al. 1992, Musiani et al. 2005, Treves and Naughton-Treves 2005, Bangs et al. 2006). Two recent analyses of long-term lethal control of wolves found that removals generally have limited or no effect in reducing the recurrence of depredation (Harper et al. 2008, Muhly et al. 2010a).

Here in Washington state we have a Department of Fish and Wildlife. Part of their job is to figure out how to handle the new wolf population. So far they seem to be doing a better job than anyone on the internet.

BTW This is like introducing African lions to replace a mountain lion population. African lions would not be very good at doing the cougars job.

ripnbst
July 10, 2012, 04:48 PM
I think all states should manage all their various forms of wildlife, both four legged and two legged. Management doesn't necessarily mean killing them.

Alaska444
July 10, 2012, 04:49 PM
Dear Buzzcook,

Let's discuss this looking at the data instead of throwing unneeded personal invectives my way.

I am aware of the WA program to PROMOTE wolf populations and I have seen those sites, but that was not the question that I posed. I seriously doubt that WA state will have the political will to control the wolf population through hunting once it reaches a level that seriously impacts other game animal populations and threatens human populations directly through encroachment in suburbs and through public health issues related to the spread of hydatid disease.

Will WA state keep wolf numbers under control through hunting of wolves to prevent damage to the entire ecosystem or will the false propaganda associated with wolves dominate the political debate preventing control of this species leading them to paralysis of what will one day be a significant issue. My guess is that WA will not be able to come to a consensus politically like ID and MT who see the great public health risk posed by wolves and aggressively control their populations and wolves will overwhelm the entire ecosystem. It will be interesting to see how popular those cute little wolves will be in WA state in the next 5-10 years.

Let's stick to the issues since your view is in the minority here on TFL and since we are discussing real issues, TFL has to date allowed the discussion to progress.

Alaska444
July 10, 2012, 04:52 PM
Today, 02:48 PM #33
ripnbst
Senior Member

Join Date: November 24, 2010
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 667
I think all states should manage all their various forms of wildlife, both four legged and two legged. Management doesn't necessarily mean killing them.


Management of most game animal populations almost always involves one form or another of culling a herd of critters when they go beyond their sustainable resources.

Types of wildlife management

There are two general types of wildlife management:

Manipulative management acts on a population, either changing its numbers by direct means or influencing numbers by the indirect means of altering food supply, habitat, density of predators, or prevalence of disease. This is appropriate when a population is to be harvested, or when it slides to an unacceptably low density or increases to an unacceptably high level. Such densities are inevitably the subjective view of the land owner, and may be disputed by animal welfare interests.

Custodial management is preventive or protective. The aim is to minimize external influences on the population and its habitat. It is appropriate in a national park where one of the stated goals is to protect ecological processes. It is also appropriate for conservation of a threatened species where the threat is of external origin rather than being intrinsic to the system.

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

Buzzcook
July 10, 2012, 07:13 PM
I am aware of the WA program to PROMOTE wolf populations

I gave you a link to the wolf management program, you can read it or not as you wish.

Invective? http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+invective&qpvt=invective+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

+1 Strafer Gott, go hug poison ivy. LOL

There ya go.

Alaska444
July 10, 2012, 07:42 PM
Already read it and others before I put my post up. The wolf management plan is not my question. The wolf management plan is a "custodial" management plan to increase the wolf population.

My question and my post concerns whether WA will ever must the political will to introduce a "manipulative" management program once the wolf population outstrips its resources as it did in WY/ID and MT? I seriously doubt WA state will muster that political will since the wolf is shrouded in propaganda and the darker side of this killing machine is not mentioned. The Discovery channel program is one example of this propaganda that does not give a clear presentation of why that man was hunting wolves in Idaho.

Instead, they only presented a slanted view of wolves as an endangered creature when that is laughable given their huge numbers in Alaska and Canada. We have had a very sustainable ecology in the Pacific Northwest without any wolves whatsoever. As essential as the propaganda shows allege, game and forest lands have flourished for the several decades these critters were gone.

Now with an invasive subspecies that belongs on the tundra and not in the Pacific Northwest and Rockies bringing in deadly public health diseases to boot, I believe WA state deserves the full truth of the experiment that their state government is about to engage.

If you wish to believe that the Mackenzie Valley wolf is native and belongs here, so be it. The data and information appears to be something you simply wish to ignore. However, 2/3rds of those responding to the poll know the facts and understand the danger of this invasive species. Perhaps you should do a bit more homework on this subject than government websites. That is why I posted this since the majority of people believe what is stated on the Discovery channel program linking in my OP. It is completely devoid of the reality of living with wolves in large numbers.

BTW, hugging poison ivy is quite humorous response and that is why I noted it. Lighten up guy and go learn some more about this entire issue.

tahunua001
July 11, 2012, 12:31 PM
While the number of livestock killed by wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming has generally increased over time as wolf numbers have grown, these are small compared to losses caused by coyotes, cougars, bobcats, dogs, bears, foxes, eagles, and other predators. Coyotes and other predators were responsible for almost all of the losses in which the predator was identified (98.8% of the cattle losses and 99.4% of the sheep losses) during 2004 and 2005; wolves were responsible for 1.8% and 0.6% of the losses
this is clear and utter nonsense. pure propaganda.
my family owns a large portion of land on Craig MT south of Lewiston and near one of the first canadian gray wolf populations established in Idaho. they have had cattle there since before the indigenous wolves were completely killed out. they rarely lost cattle and when they did it was normally a sickly one that had left the herd to die. there are coyotes, bobcats, cougars, unconfirmed sightings of lynx, dogs,I laugh at the stories of eagles killing livestock but we have those too, foxes, badgers, and bears. the number of livestock that has disappeared or found dead has always remained about the same...until recently. I do not buy for one second that the amount of cattle that my uncles have had disappearing(which has increased exponentially over the the last decade) has anything to do with the NATIVE PREDATORIAL SPECIES. I do believe that these canadian gray wolves that have adapted to a much harsher environment are 100% to blame for the reason that it is next to impossible to get drawn for elk, moose or deer tags in the mountains. it is why I am seeing elk and moose in lower elevations than anyone has seen since the first settlers have arrived. their instincts tell them to kill anything that comes along because in a canadian winter they don't know the next time they will find food again, here in idaho it is not so tough...or at least it wasn't before they started wiping out entire herds of elk and leaving them to rot.
washington is notorious for incredibly strict hunting laws and an inability to deal with over population. along the snake/columbian river basin there are herds of whitetail deer that contain over 400. the land can not sustain a population that large and washington only allows the taking of bucks 2 points or larger(that's 2 points on each antler) so these herds containing over 90% does and most of the bucks being spikes are largely untouched by hunters. they are starving, they are diseased, and washington refuses to thin them out. not only that but they've gone one step further. a handful of people have been taking matters into their own hands and started a non-sanctioned thinning of these herds and washington fish and game started ordering patrol boats on the river to prevent this "poaching" and protect these herds... what is going to happen when all the blacktail, whitetail, mule deer and what few elk they have are gone and the wolves start killing livestock? I think I have a pretty good idea what they will do based on previous population control measures they've taken.

Alaska444
July 11, 2012, 12:38 PM
+1 tahunua001, great summary of the situation in Idaho and in WA state. I believe that WA state is facing a grave problem in 5-10 years since it is very unlikely that they will have the political will to control this aggressive wolf. Great summary.

mapsjanhere
July 11, 2012, 12:50 PM
Maybe we need to send some of our NM wolves up to the poor guys in Idaho, they're doing population control hunts here. The few grey wolves they introduced don't seem to be making the promised dent.
As for the "50 elk per year per wolf" number, that's 20-30 lbs of meat per day for each wolf. I don't think they'd be running down that many elk with their belly dragging on the ground. 50 elk per pack sounds more reasonable.

tahunua001
July 11, 2012, 01:11 PM
we are talking about 200-300 pound wolves here and they cover a lot of ground. there is really no domestic dog you could equate them to but I could see an animal that weighs that much eating 30 pounds of meat a day and working it off by the time the pack has moved 30 miles through the mountains. in the winter they would burn even more.

Buzzcook
July 11, 2012, 03:16 PM
we are talking about 200-300 pound wolves here

Really? You have proof of that?

Alaska444
July 11, 2012, 04:07 PM
Today, 10:50 AM #40
mapsjanhere
Senior Member

Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,078
Maybe we need to send some of our NM wolves up to the poor guys in Idaho, they're doing population control hunts here. The few grey wolves they introduced don't seem to be making the promised dent.
As for the "50 elk per year per wolf" number, that's 20-30 lbs of meat per day for each wolf. I don't think they'd be running down that many elk with their belly dragging on the ground. 50 elk per pack sounds more reasonable.
__________________
F 135 - the right choice

Actually the figure is correct. It is about 3 elk per wolf each month according to several studies. That is about 40-50 elk per year.

http://rliv.com/pic/USGS%20Wolf%20Kill%20Rate.pdf

What is not taken into consideration, is that these wolves kill many more animals than they eat. I have foregone placing some of the websites showing how wolves eat the cows from the rear, pull out the entrails and then leave them alive to die a death of pure misery. Thrill kills are a part of the Mackenzie Valley wolf behavior.

Mainah
July 11, 2012, 05:13 PM
we are talking about 200-300 pound wolves here and they cover a lot of ground. there is really no domestic dog you could equate them to but I could see an animal that weighs that much eating 30 pounds of meat a day and working it off by the time the pack has moved 30 miles through the mountains. in the winter they would burn even more.

+1 on wanting to see a source that proves that wolves get that big.

We are but a part of nature (Biology applies to all life of whatever sort) and the key fact is quite simple: Nature bats last.

Yup, and there are nine innings. We got rid of wolves and cougars here in Maine, and we got huge coyotes (not 200-300 pounders, but big).

Alaska444
July 11, 2012, 06:11 PM
Today, 03:13 PM #44
Mainah
Senior Member

Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 345
Quote:
we are talking about 200-300 pound wolves here and they cover a lot of ground. there is really no domestic dog you could equate them to but I could see an animal that weighs that much eating 30 pounds of meat a day and working it off by the time the pack has moved 30 miles through the mountains. in the winter they would burn even more.
+1 on wanting to see a source that proves that wolves get that big.

Quote:
We are but a part of nature (Biology applies to all life of whatever sort) and the key fact is quite simple: Nature bats last.
Yup, and there are nine innings. We got rid of wolves and cougars here in Maine, and we got huge coyotes (not 200-300 pounders, but big).

That is not the issue in the wolf "reintroduction" here in the Pacific northwest and northern Rockies. I would have fully supported protecting the returning population of the native Idaho wolf but that is not what the Feds chose to do. They sold the public a bill of goods that is false with an interloper from Canada.

When I lived in Maine we didn't have any moose at all. Now, today, moose are hunted with a recovered population. I suspect in time, the cougars will return as we have sightings of them even in Connecticut of all places. Coyotes are taking over the entire country and are alive and well here in Idaho as well.

The monster wolves from Canada are a true wolf disaster as declared by the Governor of Idaho last year. This has nothing to do the excesses of the past. It has all to do with betrayal and falsehoods perpetrated by the Feds against the populations in these areas.

MarkDozier
July 11, 2012, 09:46 PM
FrankenMauser says -Washington state includes some of the wolves' historic habitat. Calling them an invasive species is incorrect.

Dude you are so wrong. The breed reintroducing in WA are not native species anymore then scotch-broom is a native weed.

tahunua001
July 11, 2012, 11:20 PM
^ agreed. there are several different subspecies of gray wolves. saying that these wolves are indigenous because they are gray wolves is like saying that an Akita is a good choice to replace a labrador as a bird dog because...well they are both dogs.

Buzzcook
July 11, 2012, 11:23 PM
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/07/11/wolf-poachers-get-more-than-slap-on-wrist/

Wolf poachers get more than slap on wrist

A federal judge in Spokane on Wednesday strengthened the penalty against three members of a Twisp family who pleaded guilty to killing wolves from the first wolf pack spotted in Washington since the 1930s.

Senior U.S. District Judge Frem Nielsen confirmed $73,000 fines against William, Tom and Erin White. But he sentenced William White to six months’ home confinement and Tom White to three months.

Under a much-criticized plea bargain agreed to by federal prosecutors, the three poachers were to get off with probation.

The poachers’ crimes came to light when a woman, believed to be Erin White and giving a false name, tried to ship a blood-dripping parcel containing a wolf pelt to Canada from the Federal Express office in Okanogan. She claimed it was a rug.

The two wolves killed were part of the Lookout Pack, first identified in 2008. The pack was reduced to two (possibly three) animals and has not produced pups since the killing. A pack in the Teanaway River, north of Cle Elum, is now the only breeding pack in the Cascades.

mquail
July 12, 2012, 08:33 AM
This isn't the first time this has happened. The eastern peregrine falcon was supposed to be extinct although there were confirmed reports of that peregrine all the way up until 1980. A known wild produced male bred with a released falcon in 1980 and a pair of unbanded birds produced young that same year in Maine. Anyway to make a long story short about 7 subspecies of peregrine were released east of the 100th meridian. The idea was to throw them all together and let nature sort it out. The birds were very successful and have recovered to be delisted in 1998 by the feds. Sadly some states still carry them on their endangered lists.

So far as I know there hasn't been any problems with those birds. They eat a bunch of stuff we'd rather not have such as pigeons and starlings but the facts are the Feds and others released different subspecies of peregrine falcons in the east when they could have waited longer and allowed the Canadian and Western US captive populations of peregrines to begin to produce enough birds to begin releases a few years later. West of the 100th meridian there were populations of peregrines so it was agreed upon to release only birds from that subspecies. For the life of me I can't figure out how the birds could tell where the 100th is. So far as I'm concerned it's water over the dam but I thought I'd bring it up. To so many a peregrine is a peregrine and that's that.

I wonder if the Feds have done this more than a couple of times. Florida panthers? Red wolves? Others?

Unclenick
July 12, 2012, 09:46 AM
I do not buy for one second that the amount of cattle that my uncles have had disappearing(which has increased exponentially over the the last decade) has anything to do with the NATIVE PREDATORIAL SPECIES.

Tahunua001,

Not to change the subject, but when you say "disappearing" do you mean completely? Like, no trace ever seen again? No carcasses or bones? I ask just because I saw a news story that cattle rustling had been making a big comeback, particularly in the southern states, and wondered if it had maybe worked its way up into your neck of the woods.

Youngshooter
July 12, 2012, 10:08 AM
Before I get into more than I bargained for I'll start with a disclaimer that I am absolutely no expert on the issue, but have done a bit of experimentation on an issue much similar to this one. My modeled simulator I used first in a Wildlife ecology lab which was dumbed down for the "non-interested" to understand, using only the variables of: growing season of natural vegetation, wolves, and moose. Long story short, I got my hands on a more complex model from a bit of sweet talking, in which I included: wolves, natural vegetation, open grazing used by farmers, natural wildlife, and farm raised open grazing animals. A mere sample of what is seen in the subject of the thread. What I found through many run throughs including various subject sizes and growing season lengths was an eventual widespread wolf population growth at the cost of resources that are much more valuable to the people investing in them. As stated before, I am NO expert on the issue, but wildlife ecologists are using models similar to the one I used(obviously much more complex) but along comparable scenarios and variables. As someone who deals with property damage along with occasional animal harm from hogs, I know how this can several damage a farmer or ranchers way of life, and with wolves, their safety. I question the idea of reintroduction, but I'm just a kid using some tools.
Have a nice day y'all!

jason_iowa
July 12, 2012, 10:42 AM
There are some shocking statistics in this thread. I wonder how many of them are accurate. I tend to think the ones I agree with are and the ones I don't are not:-) We don't have this problem in iowa although I would guess its on the way from wisconsin down the Mississippi if they are not here already.

We do have a duty to hug trees and protect animals but we need to do it in a balanced and economical way. I hear about dogs getting snatched from porches and the WI DNR cutting checks to replace them. Not really how I want my out of state WI hunting license money being spent...

I like wolves but I like people (most of the time) pets and steak more.

Youngshooter
July 12, 2012, 10:54 AM
I wholeheartedly agree, Jason. What I'll say next hurts my moral values in regards to the issue, but I did it anyways and gained a bit of perspective from the "tree hugger's" point of view. I was taking my regular Wildlife Ecology class, which I loved and learned a ton, but my professor was a former PETA member/whale wars kinda lady(to give you an idea). Anyhow, we were given an extra credit assignment to go to a website lobbying to prohibit depredation hunts in these northern states that struggle with the wolf issues. Moral tugs deluxe. Well I did it for the grade, and have read the emails they send out just to be fair, and it's exactly what I expected. A one sided, close minded approach on the other side.

jason_iowa
July 12, 2012, 11:06 AM
Whale wars I kind of agree with but its not in my back yard and does not effect my economy. PETA has caused much more animal suffering then it will ever hope to prevent. The anti fur movement destroyed the fur market and caused an explosion of fur bearers which causes disease, starvation, and a generally less healthy population aka animal suffering. I disdain animal abuse and cruelty but there is nothing ethical about what peta does IMHO.

Youngshooter
July 12, 2012, 11:36 AM
It is rather unfortunate that groups that are as hypocritical as PETA still have the power to lobby on such a large scale when everyone knows their constantly recurring actions that no person who respects animals would do. What a world we live in, and mindless people we legally have to coexist with. :eek:

Unclenick
July 12, 2012, 04:47 PM
I once read that psychologists define rational thinking as being able to argue both sides of an issue then change sides if the side you support loses that debate. It was also commented that most persons don't learn to do that until they are about 28 years old (no offense to Youngshooter, who may be one of the exceptions). It explains why activists are disproportionately younger than 28.

Rational thinking seldom happens in large organizations put together around one side of an issue. Pretty much by definition, the organization can't change sides without undoing itself. The organization comes to be its own cause, and there come to be too many jobs and too much money and too much political capital and other vested interest for it not to resist change for its own survival.

I have to say, reading all the conflicting stats and information on this topic, that it seems like it ought to be a good subject for 60 Minutes or some other investigative reporting. Did government do the right thing or did it try to fool mother nature? Are either or both sides engaging in hyperbole or dismissing valid data out of hand? Seems like one possible answer could be "all of the above", depending on where you are.

Brian Pfleuger
July 12, 2012, 04:57 PM
Excellent commentary, Nick.

Unfortunately, in regards to "both sides engaging in hyperbole or dismissing valid data out of hand", I dare say there are few on any side of any issue who do not.

tahunua001
July 12, 2012, 05:19 PM
Tahunua001,

Not to change the subject, but when you say "disappearing" do you mean completely? Like, no trace ever seen again? No carcasses or bones? I ask just because I saw a news story that cattle rustling had been making a big comeback, particularly in the southern states, and wondered if it had maybe worked its way up into your neck of the woods.
there have been no reported cases of rustling out in these parts for some time. for the most part the carcases are being discovered but some just up at disappeared. it's difficult to find cattle in mountainous terrain when your search radius is several hundred acres.

I would not be against the reintroduction of the rocky mountain gray wolf(moot now, since they are now officially extinct) and I wouldn't even be opposed to the introduction of a species that closely resembles them(IE, lives in the same environment, same mortality rate, same size, same temperament etc etc) but that is not what happened. they replaced a relatively small, lone hunter, generally scavenger but willing to take down sickly animals, with the largest of the pack hunting wolves in north america that has adapted to harsher conditions so the mortality rate for pups is almost nonexistent and is not afraid to take on a bull bison, no less a herd of cows. they would have been better off to attempt the implantation of a red wolf or prairie wolf than these beasts.

Strafer Gott
July 12, 2012, 05:41 PM
It's only after experiencing the "Feds" manage anything that perhaps I come off as more than skeptical. I actually prefer elk hunting to wolf hunting, but if that's all that's left, what else will these states have to offer? I tend to buy in on anecdotal evidence from the locals, such as tailgate shots of trophy wolves, before some politically, grammatically correct contractor BS mission statements. How do you cook a wolf?

tahunua001
July 12, 2012, 06:04 PM
How do you cook a wolf?
quite simple.
1. kill wolf
2. remove hide
3. leave rest of wolf and take hide to F&G for quality testing and stamp of approval
4. take home and marinate in tanning spices and cook on low
5. serve on cold nights in front of the stove :D

Alaska444
July 12, 2012, 08:42 PM
Hey, maybe WA state can see wolves up close and in person like in the following video from Russia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pdTLZOOvM

There is another town in Russia allegedly invaded by over 400 wolves killing their livestock.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354445/Super-pack-400-wolves-kill-30-horses-just-days-remote-Russian-village.html

With the history of wolves, it is clear, if you don't control them, they will control you.

Art Eatman
July 12, 2012, 10:17 PM
Alaska444 has raised a point which folks are avoiding. Look at rickyrick's thread about PETA and hogs. That's the sort of political problem which the state may not have the political will to deal with.

Local-area people--and even city folks--can be convinced of hog-damage problems, but hogs are not all furry and romantic. A plan can look good on paper, but any governmental plan is subject to changes from purely emotional reasons.

Alaska444
July 12, 2012, 11:14 PM
Today, 08:17 PM #62
Art Eatman
Staff Lead

Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 19,818
Alaska444 has raised a point which folks are avoiding. Look at rickyrick's thread about PETA and hogs. That's the sort of political problem which the state may not have the political will to deal with.

Local-area people--and even city folks--can be convinced of hog-damage problems, but hogs are not all furry and romantic. A plan can look good on paper, but any governmental plan is subject to changes from purely emotional reasons.
__________________
Want to be cruel? Make someone think.


+1 Art, I seriously doubt that WA, OR and CA will muster the political will to control wolf populations until it is a serious public health threat from wolf behavior and from spread of disease. Wolves have been found in all three of these states to date. They increase by 20% a year, so it won' take long to have significant population burdens in these states.

You are right, folks are looking at this thread as a pro or anti-wolf thread, but it is not that at all. The data on wolves is clear, they harbor serious diseases easily spread to humans and all game animals (100% of moose in some areas are infected) and they will kill until all of the game is gone. The question is whether the propaganda driven political gamesmanship in these states will subject their populations to serious risk. These states will surely have to answer this question in the next 5-10 years. How will they respond? Art is correct, that is the question.

stevelyn
July 12, 2012, 11:29 PM
Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population

They better or in the future they'll be very sorry that they didn't.

Art Eatman
July 16, 2012, 08:53 PM
The latest:

http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Capture-confirms-presence-of-a-new-Washington-wolf-pack-162636576.html

"The Wedge Pack becomes the eighth confirmed pack in the state. If that number grows to 15, and adult pairs continue to mate in three designated areas of the state, the wolf will be removed the Washington State Endangered Species List. That would allow ranchers and others greater freedom to protect their property from wolves."

Alaska444
July 16, 2012, 09:24 PM
I guess everyone will become a rancher! I don't see a wolf hunt in WA's future.

Great update Art. :D

Art Eatman
July 17, 2012, 10:20 AM
Back around fifteen years ago, some west Texas ranchers from around Van Horn were fulminating about the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf. Predation on cattle, natch. Now, they ranch in an area where it's around sixty to eighty acres per cow.

I suggested they quit the cow bidness and go into tourism, attracting the Sierra Clubbers who want to hear wolf howls. Take a tape recorder to wolf country and record a bunch of howling. Then charge Sierra Clubbers some $50 or $100 per night to camp out and listen to the howling. (They'd bring their own firewood; it's a desert, you know.)

The rancher could just sit off a quarter- or half-mile, playing the tape deck while counting his money. Much easier than nurse-maiding a bunch of moo-critters.

math teacher
July 29, 2012, 05:01 PM
Here in Washington we manage game by ballot box, so you can count on us not using science to manage wolves.

mquail
July 29, 2012, 05:50 PM
Here in Washington we manage game by ballot box, so you can count on us not using science to manage wolves

Didn't they use that approach to ban leghold traps?

Art Eatman
July 29, 2012, 07:43 PM
Ehhh, all of us are drifting away from focussed discussion. Enuf fer now.