The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 12, 2009, 08:54 PM   #51
cornbush
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: The retarded place below Idaho
Posts: 1,408
I lived in southeatern Idaho before I moved to Utah, around Bear Lake. There are many more wolves in that area than the state census states. Numbers don't tell the whole story. I happen to be good friends with the state trapper for the area. He personally has killed over a dozen wolves strictly for stock predation, in one instance three wolves were trying to take down a yearling belgian draft horse, this was in July, they were not starving, none were sick or mangy, they will take an easy meal no matter what it is. I think they are beautiful animals, but the "reintrodution" proponents for the most part don't live where they get released. They take a severe toll on the deer and elk in an area, not just from killing directly, but from harrassing them in the winter when they are already in poor condition. Some of the biggest pushers for reintroduction were from the Washington D.C. area, so why were they released here? Because they didn't want then in their backyard either. There is a pretty popular rule on wolves the three S's, Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. They have their place, the lower 48 is not it.
cornbush is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 09:36 PM   #52
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
PP - you are the one who is lacking in supporting evidence of your views. All of us on the right side of this so called debate have provided evidence which you have arrogantly dismissed as trivial or hearsay. While you fail to back your statements with evidence. So, until you can back up your statements with evidence, I suggest you quit polluting my thread with your useless posts. Here's just one example of many that you posted.
Quote:
I asked before and got no response, so I will ask again. Is there now a shortage of elk and deer outside of normal peak and low point herd populations? I am pretty sure there isn't. We know the wolves are not having a negative effect on livestock. So what is the basis for these claims of wolves taking such a terrible toll on the elk and deer herds?
The Idaho Fish and Game is the source for these claims. If you don't understand that, then you should do some research on your own.

Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republican Sen. Gary Schroeder of Moscow requested the study.


Information from: Lewiston Tribune, http://www.lmtribune.com
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr

Last edited by Big Bill; March 12, 2009 at 09:43 PM.
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 09:39 PM   #53
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
PP - you are the one who is lacking in supporting evidence of your views. All of us on the right side of this so called debate have provided evidence which you have arrogantly dismissed as trivial or hearsay.
Evidence? Anecdotes from biased websites is evidence? By what weak standard does that qualify as evidence?

If you have any actual data I would love to see it.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:01 PM   #54
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
Minnesota Having Problems With Wolves

Published March 05 2009

Wolves becoming commonplace around state

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

By: Sarah Smith, Park Rapids Enterprise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.dl-online.com/event/artic...23/group/home/
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:04 PM   #55
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Evidence? Anecdotes from biased websites is evidence? By what weak standard does that qualify as evidence?

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

Gray wolf no longer considered endangered

They were first listed as an endangered species in 1974.

BY Conor Shine
PUBLISHED: 03/10/2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/10/gr...red-endangered

(We'll probably be hunting them in Idaho this fall. I can't wait!!!!)
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr

Last edited by Big Bill; March 12, 2009 at 10:19 PM.
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:04 PM   #56
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
What was the point of that? It did not in anyway suggest wolves where being harmful to wild animal populations or domestic livestock? In fact it even pointed out that farmers are reimbursed for animals killed by wolves (even though they are not causing added losses to ranchers). Are you just posting random things now?
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:27 PM   #57
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
I'm not gonna say that wolves don't have an effect on deer/elk populations or prey on livestock, that would be stupid. I don't buy all the so-called facts of one side more than the other. What I'm saying is they are a natural part of those states (and many other states that they aren't in) and you boys, to some extent, need to learn to deal with it. The same way the rest of us have to deal with other wildlife that adversely effects our lives. We are in the same boat more or less and I understand your issues. But IMO, far too many of the anti-wolf crowd are not willing to accept any adversity as related to wolves like the rest of us have to with our issues.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:30 PM   #58
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
The same way the rest of us have to deal with other wildlife that adversely effects our lives.
I have a raccoon that has been using the bed of my truck as his swingers pad. I have caught him in there with "company" twice now. I have learned to live with it.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:36 PM   #59
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
From the surveys I’ve done we have a wolf pack in almost every township that has enough habitat to contain them,” said Park Rapids DNR wildlife technician Tom Stursa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNR wolf expert Dan Stark acknowledges some frustrated livestock producers may be thinning wolf packs illegally.
3000 wolves and 75% of their diet is deer? I guess the rest of their diet is northern Minnesota livestock. From what I read here, wolves are just as much a problem in Minnesota as in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. But, you wouldn't accept that as a fact even though it's as plain as day.
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:38 PM   #60
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
3000 wolves and 75% of their diet is deer? I guess the rest of their diet is northern Minnesota livestock.
You would guess wrong. They eat everything from elk, deer, rabbits, mice, and even some insects and vegetables/fruits.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:40 PM   #61
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
What I'm saying is they are a natural part of those states (and many other states that they aren't in) and you boys, to some extent, need to learn to deal with it.
The transplanted wolves from Canada aren't and weren't a natural part of the states they have been transplanted to in the USA. They are much bigger and more ferocious than their predecessors. BTW, L_Killkenny, that's a damned easy and arrogant statement for someone from Iowa to make. If you had to worry about your kids and grandkids being out in the woods of your state, maybe you'd sing a different song.
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 10:48 PM   #62
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
You would guess wrong. They eat everything from elk, deer, rabbits, mice, and even some insects and vegetables/fruits.
But, they prefer beef and lamb. And, livestock is easy pickins.

What are you a half-fast wolf biologist?
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 11:01 PM   #63
Gbro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,084
What is it about us humans that causes a wolf to not be interested in use for a meal? Maybe its the smoothness of our skin, they don't think its food unless they get a mouthful of hair in every bite
The wolf will not hesitate to take on a large antlered wild animal, but us wimpy humans cause them fear.
They have "Evolved", they learned that two legged creatures make a big boom and they get hurt!
it took a couple hundred years of intense hunting and trapping, but they caught on, kind of like the deer along I-80, the smart ones caught on and they survived. And I mean they survived!
The year those lying fed's put the wolf on the threatened list, we relocated our hunting camp because of the wolf populations(29 years ago). Of course the wolf had well defined pack boundary's and we could hunt areas between packs with great success, well those areas are gone now. One has to hunt closer to towns to find high deer populations.
I myself could care less if I ever shoot another deer, but I love to hunt, but the youngsters don't see deer and they do loose interest. This will hurt all hunters when young hunters loose interest.
I took my Grandson across the county to where we used to hunt(before I bought my hunting shack) because after 2 weekends of hunting and not even seeing fresh sign we had to try something different.
When I got to the area where i would get 3 deer most years, no deer sign was seen. 2 inches of snow and not one track crossing the road in miles. 12 years back we would count 75 tracks crossing by morning after a fesh snow in a 1 mile stretch. Then I talked to the local hunting camps. 1 - 2 deer sighted all season. Nothing on the meat pole!, Why I asked? Wolves was their answer. Of course what they think doesn't matter to some as its just not scientific.
And I still think the Wolf is an amazing creature. Its the preservationist I dislike.
__________________
Gbro
CGVS
For the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, But to us who are being saved, It Is The Power Of God. 1Corinthians 1-18
Gbro is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 11:09 PM   #64
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
Here's the Bottom Line for Idaho.

IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE

Boise, ID

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

wolf delisting rule announced


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fish and U.S. Wildlife Service delisting documents are available at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/.
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 11:15 PM   #65
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
When I got to the area where i would get 3 deer most years, no deer sign was seen. 2 inches of snow and not one track crossing the road in miles. 12 years back we would count 75 tracks crossing by morning after a fesh snow in a 1 mile stretch. Then I talked to the local hunting camps. 1 - 2 deer sighted all season. Nothing on the meat pole!, Why I asked? Wolves was their answer. Of course what they think doesn't matter to some as its just not scientific.
Yep! Just anecdotes from biased people? No evidence here! So all you knuckleheads just move along. Right PP?

Great post Gbro!
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 11:36 PM   #66
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
I have a raccoon that has been using the bed of my truck as his swingers pad. I have caught him in there with "company" twice now. I have learned to live with it.
Now that's dang funny right there!!!

Quote:
The transplanted wolves from Canada aren't and weren't a natural part of the states they have been transplanted to in the USA. They are much bigger and more ferocious than their predecessors. BTW, L_Killkenny, that's a damned easy and arrogant statement for someone from Iowa to make. If you had to worry about your kids and grandkids being out in the woods of your state, maybe you'd sing a different song.
Lot closer to natural than you and a cow, yes? And no it's not arrogant just honest. I'll guarantee that the deer here in Iowa cause a MINIMUM of 10 times the monetary damage than the wolves will ever cause you out there. Crop damage alone is figured at $4.5 billion in the US. Arrogant? Think not.

Can you imagine what the US would be like if everyone was allowed to kill deer just because they bothered or destroyed property and crops? And deer, while a natural part of Iowa's eco system had to be reintroduced and managed just like the wolf. Bet there are SOME farmers that wish they were all gone. But they are idiots. My problem is not with control but with the absolutism which you people fight, and have fought since the idea of reintroduction, the wolf. To me there is a happy medium. The bunny huggers want absolute protection. The ranchers and deer/elk hunters want them 100% gone. Both parties need to learn to live with some control which should be decided by the area Game and Fish Department. But they are there, IMO they should be there, I like them there, and I wouldn't care if they were here as long as they were controlled and managed. Like I said, happy medium.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old March 12, 2009, 11:48 PM   #67
Big Bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,053
But L - deer don't kill people. Wolves do! I've got 31 grandkids and we can't even have a family reunion out it the big woods of our own state.
__________________
There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." - General George Patton Jr
Big Bill is offline  
Old March 13, 2009, 12:15 AM   #68
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Bill, car/deer accidents kill 150 people annually. How many people in the US have been killed since reintroduction of the wolf into the lower 48?
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old March 13, 2009, 01:52 AM   #69
Nnobby45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
No, if the wolves are not taking any livestock that would have not been lost to disease or age anyway they are NOT having any negatiove effect. That is the reality of the situation.
According to the documentary on PBS that did a reasonably good job of presenting both sides of the argument, wolves most certainly kill cattle in some areas, and the rancher is compensated for the loss by the government. In other areas, cattle killing wolves can be killed by the rancher. Not all wolves kill cattle. The documentary, as I recall, covered Idaho, as well as those areas outside of Yellowstone Park which the wolves have now occupied.

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

There was never a contention by anyone, Wildlife Dept., Sportsmen, Ranchers, etc., that "all the game was being killed off".
Nnobby45 is offline  
Old March 13, 2009, 05:41 AM   #70
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
But L - deer don't kill people. Wolves do!

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

Quote:
CALDWELL MAN KILLED BY DEER

By Fiona Soltes, Eagle Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three surveyors with Inland Geophysical Services Inc. of Houston were charged by a buck Friday morning in the remote woods near Beaumont. None of them were [sic] injured, but one of the men was pitched about 20 feet in the air and thrown into a creek. The men slit the buck's throat with a machete, which is standard gear for surveyors. The deer had been in the area for some time, and had become a "semi-pet" to the owner of a private reserve there.
Quote:
I've got 31 grandkids and we can't even have a family reunion out it the big woods of our own state.
Sure, everyone wants to experience the great outdoors with none of the risks of the great outdoors. This sort of reminds me of people who move out into the country to get away from the city, but then still want all the conveniences of the city (fire, medical, police, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, convenience stores).

Common sense and a watchful eye will go far in keeping one's little ones safe. If you can't do that, then have the reunion at a city park.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

Last edited by Double Naught Spy; March 13, 2009 at 05:49 AM.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old March 13, 2009, 07:34 AM   #71
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 8,209
Sure livestock owners get reimbursed for the animal that is confirmed to have been killed by wolves. So he/she gets paid for that animal but what about the rest of the damage done to the livestock herd? What does the Government pay for that?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Lot closer to natural than you and a cow, yes? And no it's not arrogant just honest. I'll guarantee that the deer here in Iowa cause a MINIMUM of 10 times the monetary damage than the wolves will ever cause you out there. Crop damage alone is figured at $4.5 billion in the US. Arrogant? Think not.
Yes but how much does the Iowa farmer make charging people to hunt his fields? In Colorado if you charge more than $75 per hunter on your property you loose any rights to restitution for damage caused by wildlife on your property by the State. What does an Iowa deer lease cost these days?

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

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

Last edited by taylorce1; March 13, 2009 at 07:56 AM. Reason: add link
taylorce1 is online now  
Old March 13, 2009, 08:30 AM   #72
L_Killkenny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
Yes but how much does the Iowa farmer make charging people to hunt his fields? In Colorado if you charge more than $75 per hunter on your property you loose any rights to restitution for damage caused by wildlife on your property by the State. What does an Iowa deer lease cost these days?
I have never paid to hunt in my life. Far from popular belief, 99% of hunting on Iowa's farmland are free for the asking. Most farmers let someone hunt their land. It may only be relatives, it may be the kids down the road, it maybe some like me that just knocked on their door, etc but very little land is leased. What land I do see leased is for pheasant. On the other hand, much of the timber lands have been sold off to the wealthy for development and private hunting land (not to be confused with a lease).

Quote:
Compared to deer the population of wolves is very minuscule.
Pretty much my point.
L_Killkenny is offline  
Old March 13, 2009, 08:57 AM   #73
taylorce1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: On the Santa Fe Trail
Posts: 8,209
L_Killkenny, Iowa has measures they can take to control the deer population. They can increase bag limits and add extra seasons or make them longer. Iowa can add cull hunts as well if needed. I'm happy your State has managed to stay 99% free to hunt for the asking, too many are losing that privilege.

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

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

I do however dream of the day that I will be able to get a Wolf tag and hunt one of them to do my part to ensure that the wolf is here to stay. I dream as well of the day when the grizzly bear has recovered enough to be delisted in the lower 48 and be hunted as well. I imagine I'll be able to hunt the wolf in my lifetime, maybe the next generation might get the grizzly bear.
taylorce1 is online now  
Old March 13, 2009, 10:34 AM   #74
sasquatch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2005
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,347
Quote:
Wolves have been hammering the deer herds in the Methow Valley for the past 3-4 years, and these idiots think it's "great news" that the wolves are back.
Playboypenguin
Quote:
Is there a deer shortage now?
Yes, there most assuredly is. We have hunted deer in the Methow Valley for over 20 years. We have not seen a legal buck the last three seasons, and we hunt hard. The number of deer in the area is way down, overall. Many people I have talked to, including game wardens, attribute a large percentage of the decline to wolves. You may call that anecdotal evidence, but people who actually hunt in the area believe it to be fact.
__________________
Just my 2¢.
sasquatch is offline  
Old March 13, 2009, 11:07 AM   #75
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
You know, you won't see the other farmers whose crops aren't being eaten by deer complaining about wolves.

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

Gee, and farmers get depredation $$ for deer damage as well...
http://idahofarmbureau.blogspot.com/...predation.html

It seems that some recent methods, such as propane exploders and electronic guards were ineffective for protecting fields from deer predation. Maybe they need some wolves?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784993
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange

Last edited by Double Naught Spy; March 13, 2009 at 11:17 AM.
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13286 seconds with 8 queries