Wolves vs. Hunters - Page 2

Keith Rogan · December 7, 2002, 09:34 PM

Art,

I'm not sure what you mean... I didn't mean the overgrazing was necessarily hurting wildlife, except in the general sense. Overgrazing creates erosion, etc, which is bad news since for the landowners - us.

kdubya · December 7, 2002, 10:15 PM

Keith -

Would it suprise you to learn the federal government still provides predator control for sheep flocks?

Without getting embroiled in the rancher/public lands dispute, I will advise that several years ago I personally observed your tax dollars at work protecting a band of sheep here in Arizona. This band is moved annually from the high mountain pastures to the desert area, then back again in the spring. At all times, there is a federal predator control officer that travels with the band, charged with eliminating as many coyotes as possible along the way. He was provided with a muffled Remington 700 heavy barreled, accurized 22-250, same in 25-06, traps (leg hold traps are forbidden by state law, yet he was exempt), a 4WD pickup and living expenses while away from home.

The Control Officer was very upfront when talking to my contract crew on what he was doing, demonstrated the rifles, let some of us fire a few shots to ascertain the accuracy and even took a couple of crew members out for long range varmit shoot during off-time hours.

Don't know what sort of sweetheart deal the herder had with the government, but there was a lot of tax money being spent to assure nothing munched on his sheep. Far as I know, the same band is receiving the same protection today.

Art Eatman · December 7, 2002, 10:53 PM

Keith, certain plants are indicators of overgrazing. They replace the original grasses. So, the creosote bush or greasewood in the southwest spreads out when overgrazing destroys the root system--aided and abetted by drouth, etc. Further, in our area, we have a false agave called lecheguilla which parallels the greasewood, but commonly in either different soils or at different elevations.

The Terlingua area was heavily overgrazed during the WW I era. There are photos of lush grassland areas, "before"; now, some areas are bald clay moonscapes without even greasewood.

Dunno if it's still there, but there was a diorama at the Sonoran Desert Museum at Tucson of the Phoenix-Tucson area. It showed the lush grasslands, pre-ranching; the changes during the ranching period, and the greasewood-covered flats of today.

In the mountain states, sage is an indicator of overgrazing, replacing the original grasses. So, when you drive along and see hundreds or thousands of acres of sagebrush flats, you're looking at "ruint land".

These plants were originally present, but in much sparser populations.

Art

TallPine · December 8, 2002, 10:21 AM

When he was out cruising for grazing lands, Granville Stuart reported in his diary that certain areas had more sage than grass, and were even then not suitable for grazing in his opinion.

I don't remember the exact year, but it was before the huge herds were thrown out on the eastern Montana range. (I would have to go back to the library to check it out since I don't own the book)

Edit: I have to wonder just a little about the Tucson diorama - it could be made to show anything that they wanted (witnesss how the anti-gun crowd twist facts).

The homesteaders of the early 20th century did more to ruin the Montana range than anyone - plowed up native sod and tried to grow wheat where precip averages 8-12" (and many years is far less than 8")

Keith Rogan · December 8, 2002, 02:04 PM

Art,

OK, I see what you were driving at. My experience in the west is limited to a few years living in Colorado. I used to hunt a lot on BLM land on the west slope, which is pretty arid country. Most of that country looked to be pretty eroded and it was certainly heavy in sagebrush. I don't know what it looked like 125 years ago.
I do know that when I hunted there I'd always have to fend off ranchers who'd try and drive me off as if they owned the place. They got away with it at first because I didn't know any better, but after talking to people I learned to carry a map showing public and private property and I'd give them hell right back. They didn't have any hunter-harrassment laws on the books or I'd have tried to charge them under that.

Those experiences still stick in my craw! I'll bet they still pull that crap and get away with it because most people just don't understand that BLM land is public land.

Elkslayer · December 12, 2002, 11:11 AM

Finally, here is a document which is able to say and support what I have been so inept at saying.

This is a must read for anyone who has an opinion on this subject.

If you contributed to this post, please go to this link.

For those of you who agree with reintroduction and differed with what I said, this is what I was trying to say.

For those who pointed out the impact of wolves in Alaska, read this.

Because wolf reintroduction has so many contributing factors and differences of opinion, this article along with naming and giving credit to the supporting research it is quite long. But if you have a strong opinion on this subject (like I do) you need to read all of it to be fair to this issue.

http://www.independent.org/tii/conte...yrep/wolf.html

Keith Rogan · December 12, 2002, 12:51 PM

That's an excellent piece of work!

If I could reduce that to something small enough to chew on, it would be the nugget that wolf control is a political rather than a biological issue.
I'd say it was paramount that hunters in the west get their ducks in a row now, to begin the process of putting wolves on the list of game animals. Or, at least get a firm commitment to put them on that list at a certain number. This isn't like the grizzly bear that may take generations to increase to a sustainable number, this is going to happen pretty fast.
You're going to have a fight on your hands, but biology is on your side.

Art Eatman · December 12, 2002, 12:58 PM

I'm not at all surprised by the lying. We've all commented about it in gun-control discussions, and the same people are in the pro-wolf argument as in the anti-gun argument. Why would one expect different behavior within any agenda?

A major problem with the various environmental agencies is that many Green/Sierra types are majoring in such disciplines as wildlife biology and seeking/getting employment. USF&WS; EPA, etc. Again, "agenda".

I'm not at all startled by the statements about wolf and bear predation plus hunting being additive against prey populations. Similar results obtained from studies in Georgia for predation against their bobwhite quail populations.

The sinusoidal wave form of wildlife populations is well known. The time-lag between the waves for prey and predators is also well known. I had not given thought to the specifics of a ten-year interval for moose/wolf mentioned in the article.

Thanks, Elkslayer,

Art,

Rmouleart · December 12, 2002, 02:18 PM

We don't have any wolfs up here yet but we do have too many Coyotes, here is what I do to them during hunting season,I do my share to cut the population down

No closed season for coyote's in NH. Aim small hit small. RAMbo.

Gila Jorge · December 14, 2002, 08:17 PM

Mexican Grey Wolves and Coyotes in same basket to me. I see em I'm going to shoot them, shovel, and shut up which is the Montana way. I spend a lot of time in and around where the Grey's are supposed to be....suspect many others feel the same exact way. I know people in MT, ID, and WY have no use for wolves....only the sleazoid tree hugging communists back east and on the left coast. That bunch is probably HQd in San Fran.
Such a pretty business.....

Alaskee · December 21, 2002, 08:05 PM

If you'd like to read an account of wolf behavior from wanton killing to the difficulty of bagging one read a book called "Alaskas Wolf Man". It's a book authored by Jim Reardon about a man named Frank Glaser who spent his life in the Alaskan wilderness from 1915 through 1955. He was a trapper, professional hunter and later a government hunter during those years and offers good insight into wolf behavior and they dynamic between wolves and prey species. The guy was tough as nails and performed some amazing feats while performing his job. The book is an excellent adventure read in addition to being very informative.

December 7, 2002, 09:34 PM	#26
Keith Rogan Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 1999 Location: Kodiak, Alaska Posts: 1,014	Art, I'm not sure what you mean... I didn't mean the overgrazing was necessarily hurting wildlife, except in the general sense. Overgrazing creates erosion, etc, which is bad news since for the landowners - us. __________________ Keith

December 7, 2002, 10:15 PM	#27
kdubya Member Join Date: September 24, 2002 Location: Mesa, Arizona Posts: 62	Keith - Would it suprise you to learn the federal government still provides predator control for sheep flocks? Without getting embroiled in the rancher/public lands dispute, I will advise that several years ago I personally observed your tax dollars at work protecting a band of sheep here in Arizona. This band is moved annually from the high mountain pastures to the desert area, then back again in the spring. At all times, there is a federal predator control officer that travels with the band, charged with eliminating as many coyotes as possible along the way. He was provided with a muffled Remington 700 heavy barreled, accurized 22-250, same in 25-06, traps (leg hold traps are forbidden by state law, yet he was exempt), a 4WD pickup and living expenses while away from home. The Control Officer was very upfront when talking to my contract crew on what he was doing, demonstrated the rifles, let some of us fire a few shots to ascertain the accuracy and even took a couple of crew members out for long range varmit shoot during off-time hours. Don't know what sort of sweetheart deal the herder had with the government, but there was a lot of tax money being spent to assure nothing munched on his sheep. Far as I know, the same band is receiving the same protection today. __________________ Keep off the Ridgeline

December 8, 2002, 10:21 AM	#29
TallPine Senior Member Join Date: August 11, 2002 Location: Montana Posts: 528	When he was out cruising for grazing lands, Granville Stuart reported in his diary that certain areas had more sage than grass, and were even then not suitable for grazing in his opinion. I don't remember the exact year, but it was before the huge herds were thrown out on the eastern Montana range. (I would have to go back to the library to check it out since I don't own the book) Edit: I have to wonder just a little about the Tucson diorama - it could be made to show anything that they wanted (witnesss how the anti-gun crowd twist facts). The homesteaders of the early 20th century did more to ruin the Montana range than anyone - plowed up native sod and tried to grow wheat where precip averages 8-12" (and many years is far less than 8") __________________ "The inherent right in the people to reform their government, I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government." --Daniel Webster

December 8, 2002, 02:04 PM	#30
Keith Rogan Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 1999 Location: Kodiak, Alaska Posts: 1,014	Art, OK, I see what you were driving at. My experience in the west is limited to a few years living in Colorado. I used to hunt a lot on BLM land on the west slope, which is pretty arid country. Most of that country looked to be pretty eroded and it was certainly heavy in sagebrush. I don't know what it looked like 125 years ago. I do know that when I hunted there I'd always have to fend off ranchers who'd try and drive me off as if they owned the place. They got away with it at first because I didn't know any better, but after talking to people I learned to carry a map showing public and private property and I'd give them hell right back. They didn't have any hunter-harrassment laws on the books or I'd have tried to charge them under that. Those experiences still stick in my craw! I'll bet they still pull that crap and get away with it because most people just don't understand that BLM land is public land. __________________ Keith

December 12, 2002, 12:51 PM	#32
Keith Rogan Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 1999 Location: Kodiak, Alaska Posts: 1,014	That's an excellent piece of work! If I could reduce that to something small enough to chew on, it would be the nugget that wolf control is a political rather than a biological issue. I'd say it was paramount that hunters in the west get their ducks in a row now, to begin the process of putting wolves on the list of game animals. Or, at least get a firm commitment to put them on that list at a certain number. This isn't like the grizzly bear that may take generations to increase to a sustainable number, this is going to happen pretty fast. You're going to have a fight on your hands, but biology is on your side. __________________ Keith

December 7, 2002, 10:53 PM	#28
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Keith, certain plants are indicators of overgrazing. They replace the original grasses. So, the creosote bush or greasewood in the southwest spreads out when overgrazing destroys the root system--aided and abetted by drouth, etc. Further, in our area, we have a false agave called lecheguilla which parallels the greasewood, but commonly in either different soils or at different elevations. The Terlingua area was heavily overgrazed during the WW I era. There are photos of lush grassland areas, "before"; now, some areas are bald clay moonscapes without even greasewood. Dunno if it's still there, but there was a diorama at the Sonoran Desert Museum at Tucson of the Phoenix-Tucson area. It showed the lush grasslands, pre-ranching; the changes during the ranching period, and the greasewood-covered flats of today. In the mountain states, sage is an indicator of overgrazing, replacing the original grasses. So, when you drive along and see hundreds or thousands of acres of sagebrush flats, you're looking at "ruint land". These plants were originally present, but in much sparser populations. Art

December 12, 2002, 11:11 AM	#31
Elkslayer Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2002 Location: Wyoming Posts: 132	Finally, here is a document which is able to say and support what I have been so inept at saying. This is a must read for anyone who has an opinion on this subject. If you contributed to this post, please go to this link. For those of you who agree with reintroduction and differed with what I said, this is what I was trying to say. For those who pointed out the impact of wolves in Alaska, read this. Because wolf reintroduction has so many contributing factors and differences of opinion, this article along with naming and giving credit to the supporting research it is quite long. But if you have a strong opinion on this subject (like I do) you need to read all of it to be fair to this issue. http://www.independent.org/tii/conte...yrep/wolf.html

December 12, 2002, 12:58 PM	#33
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	I'm not at all surprised by the lying. We've all commented about it in gun-control discussions, and the same people are in the pro-wolf argument as in the anti-gun argument. Why would one expect different behavior within any agenda? A major problem with the various environmental agencies is that many Green/Sierra types are majoring in such disciplines as wildlife biology and seeking/getting employment. USF&WS; EPA, etc. Again, "agenda". I'm not at all startled by the statements about wolf and bear predation plus hunting being additive against prey populations. Similar results obtained from studies in Georgia for predation against their bobwhite quail populations. The sinusoidal wave form of wildlife populations is well known. The time-lag between the waves for prey and predators is also well known. I had not given thought to the specifics of a ten-year interval for moose/wolf mentioned in the article. Thanks, Elkslayer, Art,

December 14, 2002, 08:17 PM	#35
Gila Jorge Member Join Date: November 21, 2002 Location: El Paso, TX Posts: 91	Mexican Grey Wolves and Coyotes in same basket to me. I see em I'm going to shoot them, shovel, and shut up which is the Montana way. I spend a lot of time in and around where the Grey's are supposed to be....suspect many others feel the same exact way. I know people in MT, ID, and WY have no use for wolves....only the sleazoid tree hugging communists back east and on the left coast. That bunch is probably HQd in San Fran. Such a pretty business..... Last edited by Art Eatman; December 15, 2002 at 12:04 AM.

December 21, 2002, 08:05 PM	#36
Alaskee Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2002 Location: Nelchina Alaska Posts: 131	Wolf book If you'd like to read an account of wolf behavior from wanton killing to the difficulty of bagging one read a book called "Alaskas Wolf Man". It's a book authored by Jim Reardon about a man named Frank Glaser who spent his life in the Alaskan wilderness from 1915 through 1955. He was a trapper, professional hunter and later a government hunter during those years and offers good insight into wolf behavior and they dynamic between wolves and prey species. The guy was tough as nails and performed some amazing feats while performing his job. The book is an excellent adventure read in addition to being very informative.