Wolves are causing big problems in Idaho.

[Playboypenguin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]. 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]

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]

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]

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



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]

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]

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. What a moron!

[Playboypenguin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.