Wolves
I'm new here but wanted to post some pics I took this saturday Jan.6 2010 behind Pinehurst Idaho. I cannot begin to explain all the tracks seen and how outraged I am about their re-introduction to Idaho. Unfortunately I dont know how to add them to my post.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
quote:Originally posted by stevenrayspeck
A couple years ago i went bear hunting up in manitoba, This was my guide's thoughts on the matter.
Americans are STUPID!
We have spent years upon years trying to get rid of wolves because they have been destroying everything and here the americans are trying to reintroduce them into the wild.... ITS STUPID!!!... Those wolves will do nothing but destroy the livestock and the wildlife.... I realy don't know whats gotten into the americans.
Again, This was his thoughts on the matter... Not mine.... But he does have a point.
Whatever his point may be, I have to ask: how is it that the wolves didn't destroy the wildlife in the several thousand years between the last ice age and the arrival on the continent of humans?
Good point....wolves and prey animals will maintain a balance if left alone, it is only when humans intervene that nature's balance is knocked out of whack.0 -
Reintroduce them into most of the blighted urban areas - starting with DC.
[:D]0 -
Simple: I value wild wolves more than I value ranchers living like leeches on public lands and would like to see them eliminated. Less that 3% of all beef produced in the US comes from western ranches, so we are subsidizing an archaic life style here, rancher welfare, not ensuring our supply of beef. While privately owned ranches are mostly not sucking public funds to keep them afloat, they still do not produce much beef. I grew up in the mid-West were we talked about the number of head of beef per acre. In the west we talk about the number of sections per head. Clearly a very inferior place to raise beef. It is a good place to raise bison, deer, and elk. And wolves. Thank you. 0 -
Iwouldlike to see the come back of the wolf, but not at the expense of the farmers. I know how much the coyote and bobcat hurt our game population, I can only imagine a pack of wolves. Plus they dont hesitate to attack humans when their in small pacts. 0 -
quote:Plus they dont hesitate to attack humans when their in small pacts.
To the best of my knowledge there is one authenticated account of wolves attacking a human. The rest is Jack London and Hollywood, purely fiction.0 -
NightHawk -
Coyotes and wolves DO NOT form pacts. They live in what we call a pack... Mostly a family group. Some very small. Others considerable.
Wolves do, in fact, hesitate to attack humans. So much so that I defy you to document an actual attack. We humans are not on their menu.
Mountain lions and grizzly bears are not so eclectic in their tastes. While humans are generally not on their preferred list, we're sometimes included as a "special" feature.
Obviously there are exceptions to all rules, but healthy canids are not prone to attack humans. Big cats and big bears? While generally not inclined toward attacks upon humans, they in some cases see us as a dinner item.0 -
Wherever wolves have been reintroduced, they have devastated the elk and deer populations. We have two large wolf packs here in N Idaho and they are growing. I do not expect our elk and deer populations to last much longer. They also pose a major threat to humans. The folks who support these kinds of programs (reintroduction) are city folk who don't have to live with them. This goes for the darn grizzlies too. They release problem bears right outside of the town I live in. I don't know of one local who likes this policy. 0 -
Article in Outdoor Life. Written in the '80's. That's 1880's, folks. I'm assuming [Wyoming territory/Montana] at the time had a natural balance of prey and predator. Unmanaged by man. Nature at work keeping things straight.
The hunter related in the story he was able to average about 3 elk per week during the trip. Doesn't seem like he encountered a shortage of game. Remember, no wolf management existed at the time. So, left to its own recourse, I believe nature will tend to itself very well, thank you. Best, Joe
PS..article was written by Theodore Roosevelt0 -
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk
Iwouldlike to see the come back of the wolf, but not at the expense of the farmers. I know how much the coyote and bobcat hurt our game population, I can only imagine a pack of wolves. Plus they dont hesitate to attack humans when their in small pacts.
what do agreements have to do with anything?0 -
ECC -
Releasing a griz near human habitation is one thing... A really stupid thing. Wolves are another.
You're correct about herd devastation. At least in the short term you're correct. Man destroyed the natural balance many decades ago. The wolf population will increase until the herds are diminished. (I expect some collateral damage in the meantime.) Then we'll see the wolves either disperse or reduce themselves in number and the herds will again regain numbers.
I don't expect this process will be easy nor pretty. It's possible that the wolves will actually destroy the herds and themselves in the process, but I doubt it. More likely will be a fluctuation in predator and prey numbers for some time to come until a balance is reached.
If your area is anything like ours, then hunting is only a minor factor anyway. Humans being apex predators will merely be included in the mix and the wolf population will adjust accordingly... As will your prey species, though they might not be in the numbers you're used to.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't exclude wolf hunting at some point. All I'm saying is that I don't favor eradication. Wolves are unlike humans in that they normally choose to low-grade their prey rather than to high-grade it. A big rack and a strong bull, while no problem for a high power bullet, is nothing but problems for a wolf. Better to choose a weaker target for a lot of good reasons.0 -
I am somewhat amused to hear that He Dog thinks my livelihood is archaic and I should go live somewhere else. Sounds rather Soviet to me. I am retired from the cow biz and no longer run cows on the National Forest, but know many who do. It is a cycle that existed long before the National Forestrs were created, and it works well for the cattleman, the Forest, wildlife, etc. But that's a topic for another thread. I am certain He Dog would not care to be told he has to move to a new community and find a new job (by the way, the 3 percent beef figure is twisted statistics from Defenders of Wildlife and similar eco-nazi outfits. Very little finished beef comes from Wyoming because our "crop" is calves, which then are shipped to Nebraska or wherever and gets counted as finished beef from that state).
Now, I am retired and live on a few acres eight miles from town. On a state highway, in a rural but fairly populated area. We get wolves and grizzlies in our back yards, and in the past 12 years elk hunting has radically changed. I am one of many I know who has simply quit hunting elk -- the wolves move them around a lot, they hide in odd places, and they don't follow patterns anymore. Plus, it is dangerous to retrieve an elk carcass in wolf country. The Northern Yellowstone elk herd is half the size it was ten years ago. I don't know of anyone who has seen a moose calf in the Beartooth Mountains in five years. Moose in my area are going extinct. The elk will survive, but ELK HUNTERS MAY GO EXTINCT.
The morals of this story are:
1. Do not play with nature for political reasons;
2. Do not ignore science;
3. Do not trust the feds;
4. If you are going to introduce a species, PICK ONE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN!
Wolves were exterminated by our grandfathers because they are brutal and indiscriminate killers. You can't scare them away from humans -- they just get sneakier when they come in at night and take down your calf, horse, or dog. Children will be next. The problem is not wolves in Yellowstone Park, or in the national forest. It is wolves in our backyards.
Near me, our rural schools have had to fence their schoolyards because of griz bears and wolves. They are no different that Great White Sharks. By establishing limited hunting, we will reassert our position at the top of the food chain and once again make them fear man. Until then, I am not taking my grandchildren elk hunting. Thanks for letting me vent.0 -
I assumed in my previous post that everyone here is aware of certain things, and that is not fair. It is generally accepted that there were several breeding pairs of Rocky Mountain wolves still in Yellowstone, when the Canadian wolves were brought in. I know two people who have seen them: one is a judge, the other is a Baptist preacher. The introduced wolves are Canadian grays: bigger, and more aggressive than the few remaining locals. Because this was a political, not scientific, move the native Rocky Mountain wolf is now extinct. That is an inexcusable biological tragedy. The official gov't position is that the native wolf was eradicated in the 1930s, but no effort was made to confirm that they still existed in the 13 million acres of the greater Yellowstone area. Talk to game wardens privately, and most will tell you they have heard wolves and seen tracks long before the Canadian wolves were brought in.
This was not a "re-introduction." It was the introduction of a foreign species that never existed in this ecosystem. It was a political move, and it is destroying livelihoods.
Geez, I've got to get to work!0 -
Don't ask me a question if you don't want to know my answer.
What good are they good for nothin
Places we used to hunt for bear with dogs are now wolf feedings grounds. The dogs tree a bear the wolves grab a dog or two before we get there. I've heard some people have shot the poor wolves[:(]
I hope every one that gets a chance will that care of some wolves in the north wood of Michigan. I don't have ANY guns so I can't help on this matter.
Guess I pi**ed off the PITA people so be it!0 -
They should give land owners tags that can be sold to the public. The land owner pockets the cash to pay for losses. And hunters form around the country get a chance to hunt something they otherwise wouldn't. 0 -
hey spurge what is protected land. I live in MT w/ 16 million acres of public land and none of it is "protected" Do you mean National Parks like Yellowstone. Wolves do not understand the concept of borders. Plus when their prey runs out(as what is happening in yellowstone) what do they eat then. Bighorns and moose with alread low populations?? 0 -
hey river rat game wardens dont work in yellowstone park...I did for a lot of years and hiked camped and fished in the backcountry. I did snow pack surveys and was all over the park in helicopters, on horse back snowshoes and foot and I NEVER saw a track or heard a thing....come on man 0 -
I think the Canadian guide who said Americans are stupid has it right. What is the point of reintroducing coyotes and wolves? Get real, things are NOT the same as they were thousands of years ago ... maybe the biggest thing that is different is habitat. So if these pest animals that are for the most part working against us are eliminated from an area - fine!
As the Canadian guide says, why bring back trouble?
If someone wants to hunt them as game animals, fine, do it! But pluuuuueze do not reintroduce them!0 -
hey river rat i have been active on the issue of the road closures. The Ashland Ranger district has it figured out. I will post a note in general read up you'll like itquote:Originally posted by 35WhelenClassic
quote:Originally posted by flyfisher363
As a fourth generation Montanan, I screamed bloody murder when the wolves were a comin in the early nineties, that our hunting would be destroyed and that the wolves would turn to livestock and become a huge mess. I was right. Where I live the wolves has a chance to follow the migrating elk from the Big Hole Valley into the East Fork of the Bitterroot valley, and they chose to remain in the Big Hole and eat cattle. My grandparents got rid of them once for a good reason. Thank god for delisting and the potential of 130 tags a year(which was the original reintroduction panels reccomendation). Those tag numbers represent only mamngement figures. But obviously wolves are part of the landscape now and managing them must become an immediate priority.
We won't be able to use the tags once the FS shuts down all the public roads in the national forests here, the roads that we pay taxes on. There's been deer, elk, and household pets killed by wolves not a mile from where I live. I think that's getting a little close. Call me crazy (as I know some of you will, but you more than likely don't know the story anyway), but I say the 130 tags are good for management. It's a rather unnerving feeling looking across the river while fishing and seeing a full grown wolf staring at you licking it chops. It's just like transplanting Grizzlies, they didn't have to, they were always here. Just my $.02. Also a 5th generation Montanan.0 -
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
Reintroduce them into most of the blighted urban areas - starting with DC.
[:D]
There. Now maybe you found a use for the wolves.
We don't need / want them in the north country.
Give all the big cities some wolf breeding stock. Clean up the getto.0 -
I am a hunter but I find it despicable when we humans think it's ok to go out and destroy every predator or hooved animal(like the bison) just because we are capable of doing so. Hunting bears, wolves and mountain lions is a good thing for the species and for the survival of their prey-by keeping numbers in check-wiping them off the map is not. Case in point, many states back east are having trouble with exploding deer populations because there are not enough hunters anymore to deal with it. So the towns response-just come in a cull them all. That is a terrible waste. Wolves and man can co exist--if you find one on your land you should have the right to deal with them. I do not think it is a good thing to reintroduce a species into a POPULATED area though-- for instance there were once hundreds of Grizzly bears roaming an area called Los Osos,CA-today there are thousands of people-to bring the bears back there would be disaterous. I also do not belive that the wolves would wipe out elk or deer populations. Without predators to thin herds the herds themselves wipe out their own food supplies. In fact the elk herds in ID have grown from 75,000 in 1975 to approx 110,000 as of 2000. In WY they went from 43,178 in 1975 to over 105,868 in 2000. In Canada there is an estimated 52,000 wolves yet they seem to produce hundreds of thousands of caribou and moose and elk every year. Hunters are also allowed to hunt wolves in Canada which they should be allowed to do here as well. I think elk populations have more to worry about from CWD than from wolves. Wolves have about as much chance of wiping out elk & deer herds as African lions have of wiping out cape buffalo or zebra-and they have even more competition than the wolves do! 0 -
I think humans should figure out a way to coexist on this planet with the rest of the occupants that have been here longer. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Wherever wolves have been reintroduced, they have devastated the elk and deer populations. We have two large wolf packs here in N Idaho and they are growing. I do not expect our elk and deer populations to last much longer. They also pose a major threat to humans. The folks who support these kinds of programs (reintroduction) are city folk who don't have to live with them. This goes for the darn grizzlies too. They release problem bears right outside of the town I live in. I don't know of one local who likes this policy.
Here's one, ME! I'll happily take the chance of being killed by any number of wild species for the knowledge that I might be fortunate enough to see one. After all, what's the ratio of killings to sightings of grizzlies, wolves, cougars, even rattlesnakes? I'm thinking.....pretty darned low. These are creatures that were on this land before we were, they worked this land before we did, and they belong on this land. If they take a few of us, well how is that so different from SSS?
And even when I am forced to live in a city, I do my field work in fairly depopulated areas.0 -
quote:Originally posted by elkoholic
They should give land owners tags that can be sold to the public. The land owner pockets the cash to pay for losses. And hunters form around the country get a chance to hunt something they otherwise wouldn't.
That is a REALLY interesting idea. I'm all for conserving these predatory species, and I can see how those who raise livestock might want some compensation, and here you've tied it all together.
Did you come up with that yourself, or is the idea in general circulation?0 -
quote:Originally posted by flyfisher363
hey spurge what is protected land. I live in MT w/ 16 million acres of public land and none of it is "protected" Do you mean National Parks like Yellowstone. Wolves do not understand the concept of borders. Plus when their prey runs out(as what is happening in yellowstone) what do they eat then. Bighorns and moose with alread low populations??
OK, so protected land is a bit ambiguous.
it might be
-land that can't be hunted or grazed, or
-land that can't be grazed, or
-multiple use public land.
If the pack is managed, then there shouldn't be a problem in the first case, nor in the second case, but I can see how conflicts arise in the third case. So the rancher needs to make his living and a bunch of us want to see the wolf make it's living.....there should be a way to compromise. Elkoholic said something about giving land owners tags to sell.....maybe if you lease grazing land you also get tags? I don't know, I'm a little out of my depth in this field but I don't believe it's impossible.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
I think humans should figure out a way to coexist on this planet with the rest of the occupants that have been here longer.
+10000 -
I like wolves.
I don't like wolves that eat my horses.
Doug0 -
quote:Originally posted by spurgemastur
quote:Originally posted by elkoholic
They should give land owners tags that can be sold to the public. The land owner pockets the cash to pay for losses. And hunters form around the country get a chance to hunt something they otherwise wouldn't.
That is a REALLY interesting idea. I'm all for conserving these predatory species, and I can see how those who raise livestock might want some compensation, and here you've tied it all together.
Did you come up with that yourself, or is the idea in general circulation?
Not sure if the idea has been applied to wolves but it is the basic premise behind most of the game preserves in Africa. The only way to pay for the conservation of these wild animals is to let hunters pay large sums of money to help manage game populations. Very structured, very profitable, and very effective. The only difference when applying the concept to wolves is that the profit does not go to conservation to goes to landowners who are the only ones having to sacrifice in this case0 -
It seems that most wolf re-introductions are done for the most part on public lands such as parks were interferrance will be minimized. Note that I said minimized as even game manager realize that wild animals do not respect border and will cause some problems outside those borders. Now add to the mix that many of these public lands particularly parks are overpopulated with elk, deer etc. Introduce wolves to an area that has a generous food supply and they will very quickly multipy. At some point the numbers outgrow the artificial food supply and bigger problems start, though at some point a balance should be achieved as the food supply diminishes. Before humans it was a two sided formula. Now it is a three sided one which makes things even more difficult. 0 -
Here in Minnesota the wolf has more than recovered and needs to be controlled. Kinda funny how the moose population started to decline when the wolf population started to surge. I know wolves aren't to blame entirely, but when recovery goals were far exceded it makes you wonder how much impact they have. This last fall there were three moose killed by wolves in the area I bear hunt. Thats far too many. If it comes down to wolves or moose, I'm all for the moose. They know wolves can and will recover, moose on the other hand, are a diiferent story. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by fideau
When snails dominated the earth they didn't give a slimy damn if a human was in their way.
country quote of the week! hahahaha
are you serious?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
66 comments