wolves

[Lucas McCain]

Buck 460, do you believe that the wolf we are introducing today in areas are the same genetics and DNA of old? You seem to be very educated on the traits and habits of wolves. I am interested in your thoughts on the hybridization of the grey wolf, so would you please comment on that subject.

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by Art Eatman:

buck460, I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. The dog and I are not in competition over a cat, but the wolf and I are in competition over a nice buck. Or a coyote and I over quail.

You are correct Art, in content of that text, that is not an example of hypocrisy, but of Human greed and selfishness. If the wolf doesn't kill the buck or the 'yote don't get the quail, they could starve to death. You on the other hand won't starve or even go hungry that night. You are hunting them only for the sport, but are still jealous of them when they have to kill to survive. Funny, folks shoot the wolves so they don't kill the big buck they want, but then need to shoot does and fawns with crop damage permits because they are becoming pests. Sorry, but in my opinion, that is hypocrisy.

Originally posted by DannyB1954: Dogs are wolves that have been bread into different physical characteristics.

People who want to save wild dangerous animals never have to deal with them. Their thinking is as long as I am safe and secure, screw the people who do not live in my neighborhood.

Apparently you don't know where I live. One of the largest packs of wolves in the state resides on 60,000 acres of federal land that can be seen from my backyard. The DNR killed a pack of nine nuisance wolves two years ago not more than a 10 minute drive from my house. Last Saturday my youngest son and I went grouse hunting and came across several sets of fresh wolf tracks in areas where deer are starting to yard for the winter. Deer yard in the same areas that grouse tend to like this time of year. So your general statement there is wrong, not only about those that want to protect wolves, but also in the ridiculous statement they are dangerous. Those dogs you speak of are not that far from their original wolf bloodlines and kill more humans and domestic animals every year than wolves. There is no evidence anywhere that anytime in the history of the world that wolves have completely eliminated a species of animals to the point of extinction. Actually, there is little or no evidence that any predator, since the time of the dinosaur, has made a prey animal extinct other than man. Tell me, of these, what dangerous animals are being protected?

Originally posted by Lucas McCain:

Buck 460, do you believe that the wolf we are introducing today in areas are the same genetics and DNA of old? You seem to be very educated on the traits and habits of wolves. I am interested in your thoughts on the hybridization of the grey wolf, so would you please comment on that subject.

I'm sure there has been a cross breeding of wolves as they they travel naturally to restock themselves and also when reintroduced. This hybridization like any hybrid can result in a bigger/stronger or a smaller/weaker cross. Unlike many hybrids, they still can breed. Mother nature over thousands of years of evolution generally produced strains of animals that were appropriate for the game in the area as well as the climate and habitat. Extermination did away with many of these strains and sub-species. Introducing animals into areas where the original strains were eradicated has led to folk's concern that the new introduced strain is more aggressive than the original. Could very well be in some cases. Again, man tryin' to intervene and correct one screw-up often produces another. Most times tho, the packs initial population explodes not because of their aggression or superiority, but because game is plentiful. This means game is plentiful for wolf populations to increase, not necessarily plentiful enough for every hunter that goes into the woods to bag a big buck. Around here the biggest problem with hybrids is not from the wolves themselves but from humans breeding wolf-cross hybrids. These animals have the size and the killing capabilities of wild wolves, with the lack of fear of humans of their domesticated parent. People breed them because pups can sell for thousands of dollars. Pups that don't get sold, often times are released when they get large and hard to control and the food bill gets high. Folks that buy pups many times release these animal for the same reasons. Wolf cross animals released to the wild, go directly to human habitation looking for food. These are the animals around here most likely to prey on domestic animals and don't run when approached. Folks automatically assume they are true wolves. The only way, even for an expert to tell the difference between these wolf cross animals and true wolves is thru DNA testing.

[Againstthewind]

This is one of those topics that I have have a lot of gray area and is hard for me to nail down which side I am on.

On one hand I know a lot of ranchers and my wife's family is in the cattle business, so wolves have got to be the enemy. On that side of the fence the majority opinion is shoot, shovel, and shut-up. I am sure there are some ranchers who disagree, but I am going to classify them as dis-placed Californians even if they are not. In Wyoming being able to hunt and shoot trouble wolves as predators (no license or quota in some areas of the state) has helped things I think. Also having almost 20 years now of dealing with them has made it just one of those things that is part of life. I am not an expert this is just Thanksgiving dinner table talk.

On the other side I tend to agree with conservationists who think that wolves have a place in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem (that is the one I am most familiar with). I have heard that wolves kill for fun and leave the meat, but elk populations seem to have stabilized. I am curious to know what the research says about wolves helping to control disease outbreaks like brucellocis and whatever is killing the deer in the Wyoming range. If only there was a solution to the beetle kill. I am in favor of increased lumber production and prescribed burns, but what do I know. I agree that human interference makes things worse. There is a lack of natural controls for the whole planet because humans have removed them. Whenever a population goes unchecked bad things happen. Even cartoons like Wall-E shove that type of propoganda down out throats.

I think there is a middle ground for wolves and hopefully the situation will reach an equilibrium point where everyone can at least tolerate the situation. It is unfortunate about the Lolo area which seems devastated by the wolves. Well that is enough opinion out of me. New to the site, but like the topics. Please bear with the ADHD and other expletive adjective posts of mine.

[Tomas]

I have seen wolves in the area I hunt in Idaho since 2007. DFW didn't publicly acknowledge their existence until a year or two later. They have gone mostly nocturnal now, though I did get a shot at one running this year at high noon. I missed, but he was hauling okole at 200+ yards, and they are noticeably smaller than the elk I am used to shooting at.

It's the cougars that are killing deer in my unit...the elk are getting the worst of it from the wolves. Deer population has been growing, and so far, no deleterious impact on the elk...according to DFW.

Still, the elk have been reacting to their presence, and we have had to change our tactics. Elk vanished in our unit in 2008, probably due to the wolves, and it was the only year my group didn't kill one...we usually kill 3-4. But we are back on track now.

Elk is their preferred meal, and I don't think they have affected the deer population much at all.

I don't bother with lamentations. They are here to stay. I buy a wolf tag every year, and when they screw up they die. (usually)

[Brian Pfleuger]

Folks have a strange definition of hypocrisy.


For one, hypocrisy doesn't mean "I want to do it but I don't want something (or someone) else to do it." As if, I live in my house but that doesn't make me a hypocrite if I don't want mice here too.

Hypocrisy has to do with integrity. No one is saying that the wolves shouldn't be wolves or the prey animals shouldn't be killed or pretending they want the wolves gone for some reason besides that they prey on animals that the hunters themselves would like to kill. (Except the ranchers, who have their own reasons)

There is no insincerity or false virtue or deceit.

Wolves kill what we want to kill ourselves. I see no one pretending any different. It would be hypocritical if I said it was immoral to kill deer and then I killed deer.

[Art Eatman]

Some real-world numbers: Our deer lease in the late '60s/early '70s was 7,000 acres just north of Uvalde, Texas. The owner's grandson took over the operation and stocked it with goats. Close to 1,000 nannies. A year-old goat at that time was about $50 on the hoof.

His first year, he sold some 600 goats. He went on a predator control rampage against coyotes and bobcats. About 30 bobcats just off the 3,000-acre "east pasture", as I recall.

His next kid crop was about 800. That was a $10,000 increase in income.

Just plain old range cows are about $800 to $1,000. You can see why a rancher does not look with favor on wolves.

Always remember: The ad valorem tax man does not care if a rancher does or does not make a profit. "Pay me or else," even if it's out of the grocery money.

[buck460XVR]

Art, I certainly understand where farmers are coming from. I too grew up on a farm. I also understand and support the right for farmers/ranchers to protect their livestock and their livelihood. Many a long night I spent as a young boy watching for the fox that found it's way around the traps on the way to our chickens and ducks. I took it personal when another one ended up dead the next morning. Took till I was middle aged to realize that there was nuttin' personal about it to the fox. He/She was just trying to survive, not only by purveying food for itself and it's kits, but by avoiding my 16 gauge and the traps. While I was elated when I succeeded and ensured we would have eggs for breakfast and roast duck on Christmas day, I also was a tad sad to see one less set of tracks in the woods after a fresh snow. As long as man remains in the scene, the foxes, 'yotes, bobcats, cougars and wolves will always end up on the short side of the stick. To many they will always be worth more dead than alive. To some, like my son and I last Saturday, those tracks in the snow and a fleeting glimpse of gray are worth one or two less deer over our lifetime. Every man needs his priorities.

[ZeroJunk]

I saw two wolves and tracks everywhere on my last elk hunt. Plus had to listen to them all the time. Didn't do anything but **** me off. Luckily we killed a couple of wolves and one elk. Says something when you kill more wolves on an elk hunt than you do elk.

I think the men who determined to exterminate the wolves in the mountain states to begin with weren't as dumb as we think they were and we will be figuring that out fairly shortly.

[bcarver]

I guess all land has a limited ability to produce a certain amount of beef or venison. I agree wolves have a place in the world but how much and how long are they to be protected. Is protecting them creating an unbalanced system. Man has always altered their environment to promote an abundance. Is killing predators any different?

[Art Eatman]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6167/1241484

Scroll down to the "Outlook" segment.

I plead ignorance about the African big cats, but the cougar and the wolf are increasing their numbers in the US.

And what sometimes gripes me about these opinions is that there seems to be little concern about the local people, particularly in Africa. That is typified by this cartoon:

http://wondermark.com/404/

[Againstthewind]

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.167...0031-167.1.174

Hopefully that link works and is not a copyright deal. i got it from the post above. I haven't done references for a long time. It looks like WyoRedman (if I remember right) hit the nail on the head. The wolves are pushing the elk into larger groups at lower elevations. The wolves will follow or have followed them to these lower elevations that are more populated and more agriculturally useful. The article said something about the cervids using a "human shielding technique" which I understood to mean they were using the wolves fear of humans and human's skill for killing wolves to shield themselves from the wolves. So we are the lesser of the two evils for the elk. The article didn't go so far as to say that this will result in crop damage from increased cervid populations. on ag. land as well as increase wolf/human encounters. So in 2012 an article comes out that pretty much tells the locals what we already knew. I am sure it was government funded. Aerial surveillance confirms barstool banter again. The cougars seem to have a directly parallel affect on the deer. Bears seem to be mentioned in passing, but now much of the west half of Wyoming's hunting ground is Grizzly country, as that is scary, too. This is pretty interesting I will have to look into the livestock/cervid disease paths since the wolves were introduced. The wolves do seem to be an effective population control pushing the elk back into what was originally their preferred habitat. I think that human hunting pushed them into the mountains if I remember the history right.

[Deja vu]

unlike many people that live in Idaho I like wolves. They are beautiful animals. They are almost human in the way they hunt and play together. That said anyone that thinks wolves only kill what they eat are fooling themselves.

The issue I have with the wolves is not so much against wolves specifically but against having big brother force them on us here in Idaho. Many of the locals are saying things like its political because wolves where introduced in to conservative states (as a punishment) . Yet states capable of supporting wolves that also has none, that are liberal did not have them reintroduced such as Oregon and Washington which historically they had more wolves than Idaho. I dont know if I believe all of this but I do understand the frustration with the government forcing wolves in my backyard. Heck I would have a problem if they forced big horn sheep or wild boars on me even though I have always wanted to hunt one.

Speaking from a more natural point of view humans are predators just like wolves. It is natural for us to not want competing predators in our turf. In nature what happens when 2 competing predators meet? Usually one is misplaced and the others stays. Some times the looser is killed.

Man is just another animal on this planet. The Earth will still be here and have life on it long after man has gone the way of other super predators like the T-Rex.

[Buzzcook]

Yet states capable of supporting wolves that also has none, that are liberal did not have them reintroduced such as Oregon and Washington which historically they had more wolves than Idaho.

Washington and Oregon have wolves.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/

Wolves are too frequently a political issue rather than a natural resource issue.

Of 37 posts to this thread there are only two or three links to any sort of hard data. imho that's what's wrong with most threads about predator control.

[ZeroJunk]

It is true that men are predators. But, most avoid killing something the instant it drops out of the womb.

[Art Eatman]

Buzzcook, the OP was "for those that have introduced wolves where they hunt: How has it affected the deer harvest? opinions are great but any links to data are appreciated."

Face it: Links are hard to find which give accurate data about wolves' effect on deer harvest.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf i.e. Hunting and feeding behaviors: is subject matter not many know about.

Given thought. The Grey wolf should be considered a opportunistic poacher long before predator.
My definition of Foolish Endeavor: Is one who delves into, and cause's interference in the Grand Scheme of Life. Especially so when it involves the poacher Canis lupus and its near extinction.

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by Art Eatman:
Face it: Links are hard to find which give accurate data about wolves' effect on deer harvest.

Which is hard to believe, because as stated in the link given by Sure Shot Mc Gee

The gray wolf is one of the world's most well known and well researched animals, with probably more books written about it than any other wildlife species

I think most folks ignore what it really known about the wolf and tend to continue to make their judgement subjectively based on personal feelings/experiences and ideals of their peers instead of the facts. I've found those that claim "libtards" wanting wolves are ignorant of the facts are just as ignorant. Judgement is not based on what is the best for the environment or area of habitat, but what is best for them as an individual. Wolves are put in the same boat as wildlife biologists when individual hunter success is not what they hope for. Has nuttin' to do with hunter skill, woodsmanship or time put into the endeavor. It's because the wolves ate too many or F&G doesn't know what they are doing.

Was a time when man and wolves competed against each other for survival. That was a different time and situation. For the most part, that isn't the case anymore. Most livestock damages are reimbursed and wild game is no longer what sustains human hunters. Wild game and wolves kept each other in a healthy check for eons before man came along and tilted it in their favor. At one time it was a necessary tilt. Now it's just preferred mostly outta human greed.


another good link............
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/the-truth-ab...s-hard-to-find

[Art Eatman]

My point is that a lay person can have problems browsing through the literature to find a pertinent article with data which is useful to the particular searcher.

[ZeroJunk]

I love when an article starts out "The Truth"

My truth is that there was no necessity to reintroduce the wolves to begin with. Existing predators were entirely capable of doing their job. It was some romantic, emotional, nostalgic feelings.

[Geezerbiker]

Call me a conspiracy theory wacko but I think introduction of non-native wolf species was a way to make it so hunters have nothing to hunt and therefore no reason to own hunting rifles.

I'm big on "shoot, shovel, and shut up" method of wolf and big cat control. Ever since the made it so you can't hunt big cats with dogs and bait bears, their numbers have skyrocketed. The only deer that are left in large numbers live in town...

Tony

[Againstthewind]

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wolfrest.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/lesso...oe/lesson/211/ . This one had a bunch of links.

http://www.missionwolf.org/page/trophic-cascade/

http://www.northernrockieswolves.org.../ranching.html

There are tons of these articles. These articles all pretty much said the same thing. Wolves were good for a more balanced ecosysytem. The wolves end up being good for the deer and elk. The livestock losses to ranches in Wyoming were pretty minimal as pointed out above. Disease and feed loss from the elk moving to private ground are also impacts on agriculture that are directly attributed to wolves.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/new...ng-elk-decline. I though this one was the best article for this discussion or whatever.
http://www.wolf.org/wow/united-state...d-predation-2/
This seemed like a good one for deer, the original topic.

http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/wy-elk-numbers.htm - This article is kindof old, but here are the harvest reports numbers to look over.

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/hunting-1001530.aspx

I don't think that there is any question that the animals in Yellowstone needed wolves to help manage the population of elk and bison for the sake of the aspens if nothing else. Elk have adapted to wolves by moving onto private land. There are a lot of factors like winter kill, disease, drought, and maybe cougars that are more influential than wolves on the deer and elk. That seems to be what most of these say.

I get stuck on stuff, but I had better quit on this before I get in trouble.

[Art Eatman]

Thanks for the links.

[CrowdPete]

It really depends where you are talking about. Some areas are vastly over populated with Deer. A few wolves will not get rid of a ton of deer, and still make any decent hunting spot still very huntable in my opinion.

[ZeroJunk]

Bears kill more elk calves. So, logically we should just add wolves to that.

[Jim243]

What was the question?

for those that have introduced wolves where they hunt: How has it affected the deer harvest?

I am unaware of anyone on this forum that has introduced wolves into their area. Maybe the question should be asked of the US Dept of the Interior.

If the question is "Should wolfs be allowed in hunting areas that support deer or elk?" I am ambivalent on the topic, since they do not contribute to my or my family's survival or food supply. If a spices gets in the way of my survival, then they will become extinct, it's just that simple.

Jim