Do we really want grey wolfs?

[oldred]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/13/tragedy-hunter-accidentally-killed-famed-grand-canyon-gray-wolf/

This is not a rant nor is it an anti/pro wolf statement, simply I want to know how most folks feel about the re-establishment of grey wolves? Here were I live Coyotes were something we only saw on tv/movies and read about in books until just a very few years ago but now the dang things are EVERYWHERE and are a major nuisance! The damage they do has been very costly to myself and other farmers and while I understand Coyotes are not Wolves it would seem that Wolves would only be worse so why do people think it's tragic that one was killed? I know the thinking is that Wolves should be returned to the areas they once roamed, re-establish the "natural wilderness" as the tree huggers might say but that ignores the fact that this natural wilderness did not have so many people and farms/communities close by when wolves were common, these "tree huggers need to realize that it can never be the way it once was but then that is of course just my opinion. So back to the question, honestly do we REALLY want wolves back in areas where they were killed off? Was this killing tragic or good riddance?

[leftiye]

They done good back in the early 1900s when they drove them to extinction. Same for cougars.

[captaint]

I don't know. We got along just fine without many wolves for 70 years. I really can't imagine why we need to hear them howl now. The "animal lovers" never look at the entire picture. They just want the wolves back and the hell with everything else.

[oldred]

I wish these animal lovers would look at the REAL picture, they need to see the remains of a cow and calf and the other destruction predators such as Wolves and Coyotes do. I have no problem with a controlled population of Wolves or any other natural critter in National Parks and wildlife preserves but once out of those areas some of these animals just don't fit into the environment anymore, either the people leave or the nuisance animals because it's just not practical to have it both ways.

[Geraldo]

Killing off apex predators has not done humanity any favors. In making the world safe for idiots, we've got a giant surplus of them. So I'm all for more predators. More wolves, lions, bears=fewer stupid people. :razz:

[Muskyhunter1]

You know I think wolves are beautiful creatures and they belong in our wilds.

I have hunted and trap wolves for 30 years. Having said that, they are killing machines and a pack will pretty much kill everything in your area and then move along (including yotes and foxes). Last year our deer group of 4 hunted for 6 days and all we heard or saw were timber wolves as a pack had moved into the area. I was the only one in the group that had a wolf license and I got a big female after having a pack of 6 come over the ridge behind me (I was deer bleating). Next year the other guys are going to buy wolf tags too.

The point is once they are introduced into an area, most of your Game and Fish Departments will not let you harvest them anyway. Once the wolf population explodes the city-idiots will fight you tooth and nail to not let you hunt them because they live in Disney Land and unfortunately have a say (vote). Then all the turkey, deer, moose, rabbits, grouse, beavers are gone and the wolf population becomes stressed with no food. They have eaten themselves out of house and home. Got to save the endangered wolf now. Because there are no deer, moose, caribou, turkey, etc. the Game Department wants to cut game tags.

You get how the cycle goes. I live in this cycle - good luck.

[shaper]

I was having problems with a pack coyotes running through the yard from early evening until morning. My 87 pound hound mix is scared to death of them, but the little 18 pound Scottish terrier is ready to take them all on. I called the wild life guys and they said "kill them, kill them any way you can". I don't even want to think about having a pack of wolf's doing the same thing.

[ballistim]

I don't like the fact that they've been reintroduced into the wild with no plan of controlling their numbers as a result of animal rights sentiment dictating policy, if that is going to be the way this will be handled by those in control of this program then I am against it as it is unfair to the farmers and ranchers who's livelihood is compromised, not to mention the impact on other game.

[opos]

A bit off point but similar is the liberal law that prevents any harassment of any marine mammal..as a result there is one beach called the "children's pool" in La Jolla near San Diego...they seals have taken over the entire area..the seal lovers have lobbied to have the beach area completely closed off from humans "bothering the seals"...end result? The smell for blocks is horrendous..Baby seals are becoming the main fare for white sharks that are setting up residence just off the coast (some kid on a surfboard is going to have to get killed to get their attention)..There is a huge amount of disease among the seals as they are over crowded...and now the seal lovers are whining for money to care for the seals..I can only imagine if those were wolves.

[oldred]

A bit off point but similar is the liberal law that prevents any harassment of any marine mammal..as a result there is one beach called the "children's pool" in La Jolla near San Diego...they seals have taken over the entire area..the seal lovers have lobbied to have the beach area completely closed off from humans "bothering the seals"...end result? The smell for blocks is horrendous..Baby seals are becoming the main fare for white sharks that are setting up residence just off the coast (some kid on a surfboard is going to have to get killed to get their attention)..There is a huge amount of disease among the seals as they are over crowded...and now the seal lovers are whining for money to care for the seals..I can only imagine if those were wolves.


Actually you are not at all off the point, that's exactly the kind of kind of thing I was asking about, the Wolves just happened to be the critter that was the topic of that article.

[Hickok]

The people of earlier generations got rid of them for good reason. I don't want them around in the woods.

[SteveS]

There's a place for all of natures creatures. Animals like wolves, bears, cougars, etc. were eliminated from human populated areas for a good reason. The local school yard is not the place for them.

The fact is, wildlife needs to be managed and humans are the ones to do that management.

There are still vast areas of wilderness in the world for these animals to live. Let them live there.

[Ramar]

Wolves are like "measles" killem off and forget about it.
Ramar

[Rick Hodges]

Our fore fathers were wise men. They spent untold time, effort, and dollars trying to eradicate the wolf. That was good enough for me. We can't keep them limited to "wilderness" areas and they are destructive killing machines. They are already taking livestock and pets, our children will be next. There is certainly no need to introduce them...the world would be a better place without them. Perhaps we should reintroduce polio and smallpox too?

[10x]

Sadly folks do not realize that the habitat requirements of wolves and their place in nature have been long gone.
Introducing a pack of wolves into an area that has its predator prey relationships in near balance is just like releasing a pack of wolves in Los Angeles or New York city.
It screws things up - for the wolves and for their prey species.
Introducing wolves into land that was once wolf habitat but has changed through 70 years of land management will result in an ecological disaster as well as an agricultural disaster.
The argument that New York and Los Angles are "not wolf habitat" is probably valid. Sadly after wolves have been gone for 50 to 70 years, they land they once occupied is no longer wolf habitat either. But folks see the trees and the limited spaces and have romantic dreams. There is nothing romantic about a pack of wolves running down deer in deep snow and starting to rip apart and eat a living animal .

[GhostHawk]

Scientists tabulated results for 150 years and said "Look, in 150 years there is no documented evidence of a wolf attacking a man"

So they figured they wanted the wolfs back.

What they didn't know, is that wolves is smarter than scientists.
They don't attack groups, they don't attack pairs. In fact they don't attack anyone in sight of anyone else.
So all attacks are undocumented. No one survives if they wolves decide to attack.

Now we are starting to hear rumblings, of people being attacked. A dead Kayaker on the west coast.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2012/09/idaho-elk-hunter-shoots-wolf-stalked-him

No, we do NOT want wolves back. Alaska, Canada, parts of northern Minnesota ok, but if they venture from there they should be shot on sight. With a 100,000 dollar bounty on their head.

I've lived up in northern Minnesota, I've been stalked while hunting, hear them howl close at night as they scout where you are, what livestock you might have, and how many people are there.

They have an instinct for singling out the loner, the old, the weak, the sick.

You want to bring the wild back, best be sure of what you ask for.
Go LIVE alone in the wilderness for a year.
Then see if you change your mind.

[trapper9260]

I say that if there is a plan to mange them then ok but the so call do gooders , do not have a clue on wildlife.Like is stated that alot of city people do not have any idea of it all.When wildlife start to show up in there back yard they will then say some thing.As long wild life is kept in check ok for how I see it.But if not then someone need to wake up.I have wolf and coyote around my house here and seen them.They not cause any problems yet here and will see how they go.I do trap the coyotes and try to keep them in check.

[rush1886]

Short answer is no, you don't want them, if you can stop them. Gov't has a way of running roughshod over civilians however.

I live approx. 75 miles from Yellowstone, where wolves were reintroduced "TO THE PARK" late in the 90's. Wolves don't recognize park boundaries.

Inside maybe 100 mile radius of my house, we used to have fantastic elk, mule deer and Shiras moose hunting. What we have now is a shame. Additionally, in the last 3-5 years, every winter, wolves are being seen in human population areas. One recent sighting was 6 miles from my front door. It is only a matter of time before a wolf/human attack occurs.

If you can, stop the reintroduction effort!

[dakotashooter2]

As we all know members of the canine family have adapted very well to human intrusion. Dogs were easily domesticated and adapt well to humans and their habitat. Coyotes are demonstrating that they too can adapt to the human environment but still remain wild. It's not much of a reach to think that wolves can make a similar adaption. The problem is that wolves are far bigger and more dangerous. An animal that can take down a moose will have little fear of a human. Hunting them keeps their numbers in control and gives them some fear of humans. Without that control you will have the equivalent of free roaming pit bulls........ Wolves are magnificent animals.....in small doses................

[oldred]

Scientists tabulated results for 150 years and said "Look, in 150 years there is no documented evidence of a wolf attacking a man"

So they figured they wanted the wolfs back.


Good point! Ok let's see if we can analyze the rational behind the "do-gooders" efforts to reinstate the Wolf, they have been gone for 75 years and we want to bring them back. They then point to the fact there have been no wolf attacks and no damage reports from Wolves the last 75 years so obviously Wolves and man can get along in nature!:groner:

I suppose however that sounds logical to them, or at least that kind of thinking is common amongst them.

[ShooterAZ]

Here in AZ and in NM, they have been reintroducing the Mexican Gray Wolves. The ranchers don't care for it, any many have been shot despite the protective status. Also, the coyotes have been decimating the Antelope population. To the extent that Game & Fish has even taken to using helicopters to hunt them down and kill them. So why would we introduce wolves? It doesn't make sense to me.

[jcwit]

Our fore fathers were wise men. They spent untold time, effort, and dollars trying to eradicate the wolf. That was good enough for me.

Sure they were, that's why the Passenger Pigeon was hunted to extinction, and the Buffalo almost disappeared.

Being wise?????????????????????????

Not really.

A thought as to what brought the ducks & geese back.

https://books.google.com/books?id=hq47ZmNCEWMC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=what+brought+ducks+back&source=bl&ots=vjpMfUS4xq&sig=s9r4x1djwnT4ZkZOk1xKb6kYARs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sBzeVKGHB8WjNpftgLgO&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=what%20brought%20ducks%20back&f=false

[ballistim]

Sure they were, that's why the Passenger Pigeon was hunted to extinction, and the Buffalo almost disappeared.

Being wise?????????????????????????

Not really.

A thought as to what brought the ducks & geese back.

https://books.google.com/books?id=hq47ZmNCEWMC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=what+brought+ducks+back&source=bl&ots=vjpMfUS4xq&sig=s9r4x1djwnT4ZkZOk1xKb6kYARs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sBzeVKGHB8WjNpftgLgO&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=what%20brought%20ducks%20back&f=false

I'd rather they brought back the buffalo and carrier pigeon instead.

[Rick Hodges]

Sure they were, that's why the Passenger Pigeon was hunted to extinction, and the Buffalo almost disappeared.

Being wise?????????????????????????



Not really.

A thought as to what brought the ducks & geese back.

https://books.google.com/books?id=hq47ZmNCEWMC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=what+brought+ducks+back&source=bl&ots=vjpMfUS4xq&sig=s9r4x1djwnT4ZkZOk1xKb6kYARs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sBzeVKGHB8WjNpftgLgO&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=what%20brought%20ducks%20back&f=false

Species go extinct every year....with or without man's help. Destructive dangerous creatures should get a little help. I think they got it right with the wolf. To introduce a larger more powerful species of wolf than ever existed into an area where there have been no wolves for near a hundred years is lunacy.

[NavyVet1959]

I'm not so certain about the reintroduction of the wolf into a lot of areas and think that it should be done in very limited areas on a trial basis to see how it works. I suggest that we start off with releasing them into Central Park in NYC to see how they adapt to that area first. Introducing them to the Detroit inner city might also be a good test. There's probably a few other places (http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/the-most-gang-infested-cities-in-america/?view=all) that might be good test beds for introducing the wolves.

[M-Tecs]

Northern Minnesota before reintroduction of the wolf had very healthy deer and moose population. Since the reintroduction of the wolf the deer and moose population tanked. The DNR was blaming global warming and disease on the moose decline but they have admitted recently the wolfs get 50% of the moose calves in the first week.

On the Bison comment historical records indicate that only about 10% of the Bison were shot off. Disease from cattle appears to be the main reason for the rapid die off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon

The extinction of the passenger pigeon had two major causes: commercial exploitation of pigeon meat on a massive scale[28] (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/#cite_note-SI-31) and loss of habitat.[80] (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/#cite_note-83) In 2014, DNA genetic studies between preserved specimens and domestic pigeons performed by Chih-Ming Hung, a biologist at National Taiwan Normal University (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/National_Taiwan_Normal_University) in Taipei (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/Taipei) and reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences) suggest that the passenger pigeons’ extinction may not have been solely due to human influence. Instead, the effects of an already natural population decline coupled with the pressures of hunting and population loss may have all contributed. “If it’s already on this track, human influence can further increase the speed that the population goes down,” Hung says. “And once it gets down to some really low level, there’s no way for the birds to recover.” [4] (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/#cite_note-Science_AAAS-4)

[dlbarr]

Somewhere else on this forum a remedy was suggested.

Shoot....leave...shut up

[texassako]

I am not sure why they feel the need to reintroduce them. Waste of time and resources for something most of the locals don't want. Seems like the coyote and coyote hybrids are already filling that niche as fast as they can spread and adapt. A little paper on how nature already was filling the wolves' empty niche: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/1/89 .

[jcwit]

So the consensus here is to play God.

[quilbilly]

The goal is to get an endangered species into everyone's backyard so the government can control everything you do as well as generate grant money. That is why the same groups that want to plant wolves in your backyard also renamed the common Dolly Varden char that exist all around the north Pacific, bull trout, which is supposedly endangered. The grants then flow to the bureaucracies, the NGO's get donations from feel good science illiterates, then the consultants and trial lawyers get rich. The losers are the property owners and taxpayers in this extortion racket.
Follow the money. I have multiple so called "endangered species" in my neighborhood so know all about this scam.
Sorry for the rant.

[Multigunner]

There have been two or three fatal wolf attacks on humans in this century.
The only reason there were few if any fatal attacks during the 20th century was that there were very few wolves in areas where humans normally went unarmed.
There were isolated attacks by wolves in the 20th century but usually unsucessful, and the tree huggers always had an excuse of some sort.

[jcwit]

Many more people have been killed by sharks, lets exterminate all the sharks.

Thousands are killed by our own species, so lets exterminate all, Oh wait, what am I saying?

[montana_charlie]

I say that if there is a plan to mange them then ok but the so call do gooders , do not have a clue on wildlife.
There are not enough of us spending enough time in the outdoors to 'manage' wolves to the extent they require.
Better to just shoot every one you see, and try to keep from getting any farther behind ...

CM

[Rick Hodges]

Many more people have been killed by sharks, lets exterminate all the sharks.

Thousands are killed by our own species, so lets exterminate all, Oh wait, what am I saying?

What you are saying is introduce a dangerous species to a territory where there has NEVER been one. The Northern Canadian wolf is not the same animal that used to roam the lower 48. Who wants to play God now? We eradicated polio and smallpox too....playing God? Can't have man destroying God's microbes now can we? Lets introduce them back into a population with no history of those diseases nor inoculations.

The Grey wolf is not endangered. It doesn't need "saving". It certainly doesn't need to be "inflicted" on an unprepared population.

[dualsport]

This is a little sideways, but when are they going to start reintroducing Native Americans? A lot more sport potential there. As far as wolves, all you need to know is SSS. Same as cougars. Get busy boys, and what about condors? Got no use at all for a condor. Too stupid to feed itself.

[dlbarr]

So the consensus here is to play God.

No...that has already been done by the folks who: 1) demanded reintroduction and 2) demand protection status.

[Multigunner]

Many more people have been killed by sharks, lets exterminate all the sharks.
Sharks are killed everyday. Some find them quite tasty.




Thousands are killed by our own species, so lets exterminate all, Oh wait, what am I saying?
As if we haven't been engaged in such activity since Kane killed Able.

I once read a article written in the 1930's by some looney tune who claimed that Sharks had never attacked humans, that all supposed shark attacks had been the work of barracuda and some other fish. His line of reasoning was exactly like that used by tree huggers of today.

[fishhawk]

I say this to those that say we are "bad" because we cause extermination. How do you know that we are not the means that nature decided to use to remove a species for a new one to take it's place? And the same for us will we be removed for a new species to take our place?

[montana_charlie]

Oh wait, what am I saying?
Just acting as the contrarian ... as usual.

CM

[NavyVet1959]

I once read a article written in the 1930's by some looney tune who claimed that Sharks had never attacked humans, that all supposed shark attacks had been the work of barracuda and some other fish. His line of reasoning was exactly like that used by tree huggers of today.

I've dove around barracuda a lot and have never felt threatened by any of them. They just seem to hang there in the water. I've also seen some sharks over the years and know that some are relatively benign and do not attack humans and in fact we have spearfished for sand sharks. Tiger, bull, and great white sharks, I make it a point to avoid. I don't particular like animals who don't understand that I'm at the top of the food chain. :)

But, it's easy to avoid them -- just stay out of the water. I would hazard to guess that not a single person has been bit by a shark while in Utah.

Wolves? I'm not scared of 'em, but I'll keep my .45 or 10mm handy...

[SeabeeMan]

The hunter in me says "shoot, shovel, shut up". Everything else in me says all things in balance. We barely understand how we impact ecosystems, let alone other species.

They were here long before we were and are as integral a part of the planet as we are, there is a heck of a lot of hubris to say that we get to determine what species live or die en masse.

My fear would be the lack of understanding regarding the connections within, and between, biomes. If we simply start exterminating things we have no use for, it's pretty easy to envision a point where we simply cause the collapse of an ecosystem by wiping out the mosquitos, which kills the dragonflys, which allows an overpopulation of a parasitic wasp, which decimates the bees, and voila, no food for us.

[NavyVet1959]

My fear would be the lack of understanding regarding the connections within, and between, biomes. If we simply start exterminating things we have no use for, it's pretty easy to envision a point where we simply cause the collapse of an ecosystem by wiping out the mosquitos, which kills the dragonflys, which allows an overpopulation of a parasitic wasp, which decimates the bees, and voila, no food for us.

Be that as it may, may I be the first to suggest that we completely exterminate fire ants and mosquitoes first? If it takes out some other species in the process, so be it.

Of course, the one species that really needs to be exterminated is "liberals". Unfortunately, they're kind of like hogs -- the breed faster than they can be killed off. I suspect that if we got rid of all the government regulations that protect us from our stupidity, the number of liberals will decrease though. I suspect that the reason that cars no longer have metal dashes is due to some clandestine government plan to "save the liberals".

[oldred]

The bottom line is the do-gooders are attempting to put Humpty Dumpty back together and it simply can't be done! They seem to think people and dangerous predators can co-exist but they can't without encountering serious problems but of course these people only see Wolves as they appear in Disney movies! The problem, that is if it was a problem, is that Wolves disappeared because people moved in on their territory in large numbers so attempting to solve this "problem" by reintroducing Wolves and other predators without removing the people first is leaving out a very critical part of the equation! It's impossible to put things back "the way they were" back when Wolves and other wildlife roamed freely and introducing a dangerous predator near populated areas and or farmland does not in any way make it the way it once was, it simply creates a situation that has never existed before!

[Rustyleee]

NO! If you want to see them go to a zoo.

[Duckiller]

Wolves control coyotes. The one good thing about wolves moving into an area is that they kill coyotes. When they run out of coyotes they kill lots of other animals. Federal dept of Fish and Wildlife should probably be disbanded. And the endangered species act should be revisited, we don't need to save every thing that is on earth today.

[SeabeeMan]

Excellent point. You can't put things back together without removing that which initially caused there to be a problem. In this case, "that" was humans and the problem was caused by our species encroaching on the habitat/territory of another species. The bill for progress of one species is often paid for with the existence of another. That being said, I don't think it is appropriate for one species to simply decide to exterminate another because we don't like them.

If you want to take the religious route and claim that humans were put on Earth to hold dominion over all living things, then I'm pretty sure making those decisions isn't up to us. If you want to play the logic card, then we should probably not make drastic decisions without a full understanding of the consequences. If you prefer the "I'm don't like them, so I'm going to kill them" route, then I might as well just make the Nazi reference now.

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law), the only thing more accurate than Murhpy's Law!

Any way you take it, I don't see a justifiable way to simply exterminate them.




The bottom line is the do-gooders are attempting to put Humpty Dumpty back together and it simply can't be done! They seem to think people and dangerous predators can co-exist but they can't without encountering serious problems but of course these people only see Wolves as they appear in Disney movies! The problem, that is if it was a problem, is that Wolves disappeared because people moved in on their territory in large numbers so attempting to solve this "problem" by reintroducing Wolves and other predators without removing the people first is leaving out a very critical part of the equation! It's impossible to put things back "the way they were" back when Wolves and other wildlife roamed freely and introducing a dangerous predator near populated areas and or farmland does not in any way make it the way it once was, it simply creates a situation that has never existed before!

[montana_charlie]

If you want to take the religious route and claim that humans were put on Earth to hold dominion over all living things, then I'm pretty sure making those decisions isn't up to us.
If not 'us', then who?

There are variations based upon which translation you prefer to read, but they all say something like:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

That pretty well says that God delegated to 'us' full authority over the whole complex.


So the consensus here is to play God.
I am unaware of any passage in scripture where He recinded that authority, so it is still our job to do that.

CM

[NavyVet1959]

So the consensus here is to play God.

Well, as they say, "It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it..."

[45 2.1]

If you look up "Agenda 21", I believe you will see where all this unbelievable stuff is coming from.

[C. Latch]

I imagine a world where all land is privately held and landowners can do as they please with regards to wildlife - fence your place off, shoot every wolf that you see, form a cooperative with other landowners and make a wolf haven - do what you want with your place.

Want to save wolves? Get rich, buy a giant ranch, grow wolves, charge tourists to come hear them howl.
Want to destroy them? Get rich, buy a giant ranch, kill them all and have a deer/elk paradise. Your land, your call.

[SeabeeMan]

In the end, for me at least, it boils down to the idea that if you live on a cold wooden boat, you may be better served learning how to make blankets than fire. We live in this environment as part of it, not something above it. I would rather not see it destroyed lest there be no more deer, moose, or elk for my kids to shoot boolits at. Or no more grand kids to shoot them.

[jcwit]

Well, as they say, "It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it..."

Put yourself on a pretty high pedestal don't you.

Careful when pride catches up!

[NavyVet1959]

Put yourself on a pretty high pedestal don't you.

Careful when pride catches up!

Aim high -- 'cause gravity SUCKS...

[oldred]

Ok I don't think most here would advocate the extinction of Wolves, and it's my understanding they are not exactly on the verge of extinction. Nor is the danger to humans the over-riding reason not to reintroduce them to areas near populations and farms, although it can certainly be argued they can be a danger to humans, but rather it's more of a problem with what they can do to livestock, pets, etc. The fact is they seem to be pretty much in balance right now where they are so my suggestion is let's just leave things as they are, nothing is killed off to extinction and there are plenty of Wolves for people who want to see the dang things if they go where they are now, our cattle, pet's, etc (and children!) are safe. No action need be taken one way or the other, don't kill them off where they are not a problem and don't introduce them to areas where they would be a problem, it's as simple as that!

[fishhawk]

Wis. had a goal of 350 wolves in the state thy figured thats what "land" could sustain with out problems to humans live stock or the deer herd in the state. There are now almost 800 and the bunny huggers again had them listed as endangered so they are again protected and we are again unable to reduce the population to a level that the land can handle. It's emotion overruling sound management goals again to the determent of all.

[M-Tecs]

The hunting guide and lodging services are becoming extinct in some of the areas wolves have been reintroduced in. I will take deer, moose, elk and livestock over wolves anytime. I am fine with the wolf popular before the reintroduced efforts. The wolf was extinct in the areas populated by humans. It should stay that way.

[Plate plinker]

Yes I want one hanging on my wall. Besides there no kill em all.

[montana_charlie]

We live in this environment as part of it, not something above it. I would rather not see it destroyed lest there be no more deer, moose, or elk for my kids to shoot boolits at.
The populations of those game animals are much lower now in the areas where wolves were reintroduced.
Luckily, for someone with your point of view, that does not include Wisconsin ... but is quite acceptable 'in my backyard'.

It really makes me shake my head in wonder when I read something like this.
Wolf activists argue wolves have the right to exist in their native territories.
http://www.northlandoutdoors.com/event/article/id/252791/publisher_ID/36/#sthash.048LRi1j.dpuf

400 years ago, bears and wolves lived on Manhattan Island. But the "right to exist" there no longer seems to be a consideration.

CM

[oldred]

Well so far there are no Wolves that I know of here in East Tn outside of the Zoo but I assure you if I see one of the stinkin things I will treat it just as I would a Coyote and see no reason to tell anyone if I do.

[.30-06 fan]

Wolves and coyotes are typacally shot on sight around here. That said, i would not like to see them extinct. Its a balancing act.

Only the true hunter is the true conservationist.

[shooter93]

I'll be the odd man out again....yes we want them. The predator prey balance is quite important to the welfare of the forests, grass lands etc. There have been a number of places where putting more grazing animals in a given area and having predators there drastically increases the grasslands and the grass is much healthier. Areas that were virtual deserts have come back to very substantial grass lands again. The predators keep them game or cattle moving. Their hooves chew up the soil and the urine and feces act as nutrients. The land is not over grazed like it is without predators around. A rancher in Montana got to thinking there was once millions of Bison and the grasslands were great. He added large number of cattle to his ranch and he acts like a predator and keeps them moving. His grass has expanded and increased in quality. Streams that had the banks trampled and dried up are now back. 70% of all the bird species ever found in Montana....including ones nearly extinct....are back also. He has not lost ant cattle to the Yellowstone wolves. Forests in India and Africa have also shown great improvements by having predators. They keep the herd animals moving and they don't over graze. The forest becomes healthier. I sure most here will think it's all made up and a lie but it's working everywhere it's been used. We even need vultures as India found out the hard way and has since started to bring them back. It's a balance....a balance more delicate than people realize. We are part of the balance. We need the predators and they need us.

[kenyerian]

I can live without them.

[Plate plinker]

I wonder what the "natives" did to the wolves that they encountered? I'm guess it involved a stone point Spear or arrow.

[KYCaster]

Well so far there are no Wolves that I know of here in East Tn outside of the Zoo but I assure you if I see one of the stinkin things I will treat it just as I would a Coyote and see no reason to tell anyone if I do.



Sorry Oldred......somebody shot it here in KY before it had a chance to get to your neighborhood.

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Officials-confirm-gray-wolf-killed-in-Ky-219749481.html

Jerry

[Blammer]

it's "wolves" and no we don't want them.

[Plate plinker]

I can only think of one positive of a wolf population and that's is they are effective coyote killers. Or so I hear.

[MtGun44]

Read post #14 about 6 times in a row and you have my opinion on this.

Love dogs, hate wolves. I want to be able to hunt, and they will end it. I think this
may have been the plan all along, to end hunting.

Bill

[oldred]

it's "wolves" and no we don't want them.


Yes it is and I knew that but the thread title is a typo, if you will notice in all my posts I spelled it correctly but unfortunately I didn't realize the error in the title until I had already posted, there was no way for me to change it. Seems as if I have a bad habit of making errors in my thread titles and have even had the mods correct a couple of them for me but I didn't bother with that one, still you are correct and I have absolutely no problem with folks pointing out an error. Maybe if I get thumped on the noggin enough over it I will be a bit more careful in the future! :oops:

[crowbuster]

I want wolves. On my wall.

[MaryB]

I have the same problem with them using my yard as a runway into town. Town gave me permission to kill as many as I can as long as I shoot away from the school(2 blocks away)


I was having problems with a pack coyotes running through the yard from early evening until morning. My 87 pound hound mix is scared to death of them, but the little 18 pound Scottish terrier is ready to take them all on. I called the wild life guys and they said "kill them, kill them any way you can". I don't even want to think about having a pack of wolf's doing the same thing.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

No.
OK, the computer says my answer is too short, and that it must be 5 characters in length.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.

[MaryB]

Skin them, toss the carcass for the birds to eat


I like wolves....
six feet under....but that's a lot of work so 3' will work.

[MaryB]

Wolves decimated the moose and deer populations in Northern MN


I'll be the odd man out again....yes we want them. The predator prey balance is quite important to the welfare of the forests, grass lands etc. There have been a number of places where putting more grazing animals in a given area and having predators there drastically increases the grasslands and the grass is much healthier. Areas that were virtual deserts have come back to very substantial grass lands again. The predators keep them game or cattle moving. Their hooves chew up the soil and the urine and feces act as nutrients. The land is not over grazed like it is without predators around. A rancher in Montana got to thinking there was once millions of Bison and the grasslands were great. He added large number of cattle to his ranch and he acts like a predator and keeps them moving. His grass has expanded and increased in quality. Streams that had the banks trampled and dried up are now back. 70% of all the bird species ever found in Montana....including ones nearly extinct....are back also. He has not lost ant cattle to the Yellowstone wolves. Forests in India and Africa have also shown great improvements by having predators. They keep the herd animals moving and they don't over graze. The forest becomes healthier. I sure most here will think it's all made up and a lie but it's working everywhere it's been used. We even need vultures as India found out the hard way and has since started to bring them back. It's a balance....a balance more delicate than people realize. We are part of the balance. We need the predators and they need us.

[MaryB]

Only if the populations are managed via hunting and trapping like MN had started doing. We have to many wolves at the moment and the greenies got a judge to block the harvest.

[largom]

If we treated the earth like the Native Americans did we would have no problems at all.

Larry

[jcwit]

All God's creatures have been put here for a reason, to think or say otherwise is to think or say God does not know what he is doing.

And as such you are in fact putting yourself above God.

Interesting!

[.30-06 fan]

All God's creatures have been put here for a reason, to think or say otherwise is to think or say God does not know what he is doing.

And as such you are in fact putting yourself above God.

Interesting!

Nope, he gave us dominion over them. Genesis1:28

[MaryB]

They need to be manged. You cannot let an apex predator run wild in an area that cannot feed them.

[Plate plinker]

If we treated the earth like the Native Americans did we would have no problems at all.

Larry

the natives did burn management. Do you think they managed the game too?

Just curious.

[jcwit]

the natives did burn management. Do you think they managed the game too?

Just curious.

They had no idea what they were doing other than feeding themselves.

[jcwit]

They need to be manged. You cannot let an apex predator run wild in an area that cannot feed them.

Correct, Mary.

[jcwit]

Nope, he gave us dominion over them. Genesis1:28

Dominion does not mean to exterminate them.

[oldred]

Yes they do need to be managed not allowed to remain unchecked in areas that are simply no longer suitable for them. That's what puzzles me, why can't some folks see the problem with trying to mingle society with wild nature? The fact is the environment itself has changed, for better or worse depending on point of view but like it or not it HAS changed and along with that comes changes to what can and can not co-exist, this is a fundamental fact whether a person is willing to accept it or not. We have to make a choice when two species can not co-exist, one or the other must go or both must accept the consequences, it's a fact that some types of wildlife simply can not live in the same areas as people! Again I am not saying Wolves should be exterminated but rather left to the areas they inhabit now, basically just leave well enough alone!

[Three44s]

It's a false narrative that the "native" wolf was re-introduced back into the lower 48!

The wolf brought in by the Clinton administration ..........

I repeat .... brought in by Bruce Babbit of the Clinton administration was NOT NATIVE!

The native wolf existed in two areas .... one inside of Yellowstone Park and one outside.

It was "removed" by the invasive Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (NRMW) from Canada and likely bloodlines from Alaska.

It was a ruse at best and a violation of the Endangered Species Act!

There was a lawsuit filed by the Wyoming State Farm Bureau and an amicus brief filed by a husband and wife couple that were studying the 70 odd individuals of the true wolf of Yellowstone and near by and a Federal District Court Judge ......... ORDERED the Federal government to REMOVE the invasive NRMW from the area but put a temporary hold on his decision until an appeal would perhaps settle the issue.

The Tenth circuit of Appeals ........ REVERSED the District Judge's decision. It reasoned that the bureaucrats of the US Fish and Wildlife Service were "experts in their field" and defered to their judgment.

Clinton raided Pitt Roberston funds to bring the invasive "Canadian" wolf in because Congress refused to give him the money.

Some of us ought to remember where that money comes from .................. IT's our cotton picken money we pay when we buy bullets, guns and fish hooks .... to mention a few items!

So if the folks on this forum that like to defend the invasive wolves but do so arguing that it's not "fair" for man to tamper with nature .........

............ you better get some better glasses!

The Federal government ain't our friend and you ought to know better!

Three 44s

[.30-06 fan]

Dominion does not mean to exterminate them.


I personally would not like to wolves exterminated.

I do think dominion means do as you please.

Wrong or right.

YMMV

Gen 1:26 my bad

[largom]

the natives did burn management. Do you think they managed the game too?

Just curious.


The natives burned the old dried grass so as to promote better new grass which created more feed for the wildlife.

Larry

[jcwit]

I do think dominion means do as you please.

Wrong or right.




meaning of the word.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dominion



dominion
[duh-min-yuh n] /dəˈmɪn yən/
Spell Syllables



Examples (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/source-example-sentences)
Word Origin (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/source-word-origin)


noun 1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

2. rule; control; domination (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domination).

3. a territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single rulership holds sway.

4. lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.

5. Government. a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire: formerly applied to self-governing divisions of the British Empire, as Canada and New Zealand.

6. dominions, Theology, domination (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domination) (def 3).

[Plate plinker]

Did just a little reading. Natives also deforested to promote more game, so in essence they did manage game. Still wondering if the deliberatly destroyed predators to preserve game.
I do realize we may never know.

[.30-06 fan]

meaning of the word.





dominion


[duh-min-yuh n] /dəˈmɪn yən/
Spell Syllables



Examples (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/source-example-sentences)
Word Origin (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/source-word-origin)


noun 1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

2. rule; control; domination (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domination).

3. a territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single rulership holds sway.

4. lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.

5. Government. a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire: formerly applied to self-governing divisions of the British Empire, as Canada and New Zealand.

6. dominions, Theology, domination (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domination) (def 3).

Yes. This is what dominion means.

[jcwit]

Yes. This is what dominion means.

The key word is "control" not eliminate.

[.30-06 fan]

The key word is "control" not eliminate.

Thats only one part of the definition. Check out the others.

I will agree to differ.

Like i said YMMV.

[jcwit]

Thats only one part of the definition. Check out the others.

I will agree to differ.

Like i said YMMV.

Oh, I did, remember, I'm the one that posted the definition. No where does it even suggest to eliminate.

[.30-06 fan]

Control, rule, to exercise control over. If there is a unbalance, there is nothing to say you can not eliminate the problem, its the ultimate applacation of control.

When we are given rule, the gift and resposibilty is upon us to do as we see fit.

Agree or not, your choice.

No more debate from me.

[John in WYO]

Scientists tabulated results for 150 years and said "Look, in 150 years there is no documented evidence of a wolf attacking a man"
So all attacks are undocumented.

Troy Mader's research seems legit: http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

[smokeywolf]

I have a soft spot for wolfdogs, but that is a completely different animal from a wild full blooded wolf. We had one wolfdog who was 75% Grey (timber) Wolf. Smokeywolf was an amazing animal and integrated well with our family (pack). But, he still was not 100% Grey Wolf. I would not recommend to anyone to adopt a full blooded wolf for a pet. They are almost always too smart, too curious, too willful and too powerful. We've had 3 wolfdogs over the last 20 years and have done thousands of hours of study.

Wolves are beautiful critters and hopefully can have a place in the ecosystem. However, the places they used to occupy have long since disappeared. I do remember that when the wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, the justification was that the once overpopulated elk herds had decimated the browse and it was now causing reduced birth numbers and low birth weights in elk calves. This allowed the bears to be able to take most of the surviving calves during their first Summer.

As far as who should determine where wolves should be reintroduced, the only one's who should have say so over that are qualified biologists and those who reside in the area in which the wolves are to be released. The residents of the area proposed as a new wolf habitat should have the last word as to whether they should have to share their home with a predator that could take their stock, their pets and even small children.

Over population by coyotes is a result of no wolves to keep their numbers in check. However, if I had to face down a wolf or a coyote, the latter would be my choice.

Somebody said that the government should not be trusted to make this decision. They're dog-gone right about that. Trusting the government is a completely ridiculous notion. I'd sooner trust a pack of wolves.

smokeywolf

[GaryN]

To those who think wolves should be reintroduced to their historic habitat, how about the grizzly bear? I have heard that they once roamed California. It makes about as much sense. When there wasn't enough game animals being killed by men to keep the numbers in check the large predators made up the difference. In modern times that difference is not needed. I want to hunt. If the place is overrun with predators then I can't. Everywhere they have been reintroduced the game populations have plummeted. The wolf protectors keep fighting to save the poor wolf even when there are too many. There will always be wolves no matter what we do. So I say SSS just keep the numbers in check.

[NavyVet1959]

400 years ago, bears and wolves lived on Manhattan Island. But the "right to exist" there no longer seems to be a consideration.


Which is too bad... They obviously need to be reintroduced to Manhattan Island. Central Park is 843 acres. That should be able to support a couple of them, especially once you take into account the abundant food source (people walking their dogs, joggers, bums, etc) that is in the park.

[Bazoo]

I want the wolves to come back. Incidentally, I am opposed to the keystone pipeline. I figure inconvenience and jobs arent worth raping the land for.

[NavyVet1959]

I wonder what the "natives" did to the wolves that they encountered? I'm guess it involved a stone point Spear or arrow.

I suspect that some got domesticated, some became clothing, and some became dinner... :)

[Three44s]

It's a false narrative that the "native" wolf was re-introduced back into the lower 48!

The wolf brought in by the Clinton administration ..........

I repeat .... brought in by Bruce Babbit of the Clinton administration was NOT NATIVE!

The native wolf existed in two areas .... one inside of Yellowstone Park and one outside.

It was "removed" by the invasive Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf (NRMW) from Canada and likely bloodlines from Alaska.

It was a ruse at best and a violation of the Endangered Species Act!

There was a lawsuit filed by the Wyoming State Farm Bureau and an amicus brief filed by a husband and wife couple that were studying the 70 odd individuals of the true wolf of Yellowstone and near by and a Federal District Court Judge ......... ORDERED the Federal government to REMOVE the invasive NRMW from the area but put a temporary hold on his decision until an appeal would perhaps settle the issue.

The Tenth circuit of Appeals ........ REVERSED the District Judge's decision. It reasoned that the bureaucrats of the US Fish and Wildlife Service were "experts in their field" and defered to their judgment.

Clinton raided Pitt Roberston funds to bring the invasive "Canadian" wolf in because Congress refused to give him the money.

Some of us ought to remember where that money comes from .................. IT's our cotton picken money we pay when we buy bullets, guns and fish hooks .... to mention a few items!

So if the folks on this forum that like to defend the invasive wolves but do so arguing that it's not "fair" for man to tamper with nature .........

............ you better get some better glasses!

The Federal government ain't our friend and you ought to know better!

Three 44s


The fact that several of the "huggers" chiming in have any desire to take on the above does not surprise me ........

........ the fact that NONE of them "have a pair" to give it a go .......... AMAZES ME!

Three 44s

[jcwit]

I want the wolves to come back. Incidentally, I am opposed to the keystone pipeline. I figure inconvenience and jobs arent worth raping the land for.

I think the wolfs should be part of the wilderness eco system. No problem there. Be a part of the ranch environment? Not really.

As far as the Keystone pipeline, absolutely it should go thru, will help our energy independence, will create jobs, and we already have pipelines running all over the same area, so there obviously is not a problem.

[NavyVet1959]

As far as the Keystone pipeline, absolutely it should go thru, will help our energy independence, will create jobs, and we already have pipelines running all over the same area, so there obviously is not a problem.

If you look at the map of the pipelines in the US, you have to laugh at the people who are getting so bent out of shape about one new pipeline.

http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/ImageCollections/Images/phmsa-npms-map-inside-pg.png

They should be concerned with the aging infrastructure, not the new ones are are being added.

[MUSTANG]

1. There is a reason our forefathers worked to reduce/remove wolves from the places they settled from Maine to Washington State, to Kalifornia-Texas and on to parts of Florida and in between.

2. For those who sit in their high rises in the nations Metropolis areas watching and learning about wolves and other wildlife on Disney/Discovery/et.al; I recommend they advocate for introduction of self sustaining wolf packs in those Metropolis areas where they live. They can then discover personally the interactions of life on natures terms. Keep their noses and political actions out of the areas where they do not live and should have no "Say or Vote" concerning legislative actions (The US is a Republic for a reason).

3. Wolves are just one of natures species that come into conflict with the human species from time to time. Predators such as Coyotes and Cougar/Mountain Lion come immediately to mind. The range of Coyotes has dramatically expanded over the last 100 years, they can now be found inside the city limits of many cities where they were unheard of 100 years ago. I remember local newspaper articles from across the U.S. 20 to 30 years ago citing either "Threats" or attacks to Hikers from coyote packs; and threats/attacks on small children. These reports seem to have reduced/disappeared over time.

We had several small packs of coyotes in the areas around our home in Moapa that were controlled in size by several neighbors who hunted and trapped them. The ranches where these packs ranged were sold off to the Southern Nevada Water Authority,US Fish and Wild Life Service, and Nature Conservancy who stopped hunting/shooting/trapping on all the lands they acquired. Coyote population dramatically grew, numbers of packs expanded and the game birds and rabbit population dropped dramatically. Then the coyotes began to starve and became more aggressive.

When we all own it, no one gets to use it. The collective mentality at work.

Although the wildlife biologists swear I am mistaken (crazy), we periodically have one or more Mountain Lions that range into and out of the Muddy River behind the Moapa House. I have seen the foot prints, and smelled and heard the cats in the impenetrable brush in places along the feeder creeks and river. Have not seen them, but know they are there from time to time (they can range as much as 100 miles I am told).

4. Bottom line is that I do not hunt wolves, Coyotes, or Mountain lions. If they become a problem I would hunt and kill them. At both the Moapa Nv. and the Kalispell Mt. houses I am careful to ensure that the Grandchildren are never alone outside the houses. I generally carry a large caliber handgun when around the areas of both properties (concealed), and have a .30 rifle loaded and at hand in in the houses in case a pack of wolves, coyotes, bear, mountain lion, or Homo Sapiens should they threaten livestock or family.

Live and let live, but be ready to protect if necessary.

[NavyVet1959]

I grew up on a ranch and as far as I know, we never had any coyotes or wolves around, but we did have packs of dogs that would attack calves after they were born. It didn't happen often since I was pretty good at putting a bullet into any dogs that got on our property even if it was a neighbor's.

[oldred]

Which is too bad... They obviously need to be reintroduced to Manhattan Island. Central Park is 843 acres. That should be able to support a couple of them, especially once you take into account the abundant food source (people walking their dogs, joggers, bums, etc) that is in the park.


No way should that happen even to a Wolf! Forcing them to live on that diet would definitely be animal cruelty, Lol!

[oldred]

I grew up on a ranch and as far as I know, we never had any coyotes or wolves around, but we did have packs of dogs that would attack calves after they were born. It didn't happen often since I was pretty good at putting a bullet into any dogs that got on our property even if it was a neighbor's.


Yes dogs too are a serious problem and in some ways even more so than Coyotes, the Coyotes are simply shot on sight and that's the end of it but usually dogs belong to someone and as much of a problem as they might be I simply can not and will not shoot someone's pet until they have a chance to resolve the problem. If I can identify the owner I will warn them, otherwise I will shoot to scare the first two times but the third time they show up it's time to fire up the backhoe and just keep my mouth shut. This has happened more than once and it's probably the hardest thing I have had to do, still if the owner is no more responsible than that then what happens is ultimately their fault but I will at least give them a chance first.

[Plate plinker]

Feral dogs are a bigger problem than most people realize. I have taken out several as well as many many feral cats. I really hate those things.

[montana_charlie]

I want the wolves to come back.
Which part of Kentucky should be the first reintroduction point, and how many do you need?

CM

[quilbilly]

Wolves control coyotes. The one good thing about wolves moving into an area is that they kill coyotes. When they run out of coyotes they kill lots of other animals. Federal dept of Fish and Wildlife should probably be disbanded. And the endangered species act should be revisited, we don't need to save every thing that is on earth today. In my neighborhood the mountain lions eat the coyotes. When our state trapped/killed five lions within two miles of our house in a three month period, no-one had seen(or heard) a coyote in a year and it took another 18 months for the first coyote to show up. We don't need no steeenking wolves to control coyotes here.

[ballistim]

Feral dogs are a bigger problem than most people realize. I have taken out several as well as many many feral cats. I really hate those things.

I've seen feral dogs on my property that I'm convinced are a coyote/dog crossbreed and have read of problems with them in other areas due to their lack of fear of humans. Once again, it will require attacks on prominent citizens or their pets to draw attention to wolves, coyotes & hybrids moving into populated areas and simply doing what they are supposed to do, which is surviving by any means available to them, and coyotes in particular are extremely skilled at adapting to whatever their surroundings are and thriving even in the face of minimal regulations for their control, which does not seem to deter their numbers which is a win-win situation for hunters and trappers. Reintroducing the wolf or any other species with hands tied regarding controlling their numbers is absurd, and I don't know how it could be viewed any other way by anyone concerned with the success of the program.
Grey wolf reintroduction to carefully selected areas and effectively controlled by hunting, trapping, and other effective measures with compensation regarding losses to ranchers and farmers could be a great boon to the hunters and conservationists if done properly IMO, but it seems obvious that the voice of reason will not win out here and alas this will become another disaster due to man's lack of ability to exercise dominion over what we are responsible for. I'm stepping off my soap box so anyone with an opposing view on the subject can rip my take on this to shreds, as is their right.

[oldred]

Which part of Kentucky should be the first reintroduction point, and how many do you need?

CM


Just don't send any of the dang things to down near the Ky/Tn border, that's just too close for comfort! I wish whoever wants Coyotes and Wolves to come back would have to put up with the stinkin things for a while, I have no doubt at all they would see things in a different light after a month or so! But then that's the problem, the people who push for this non-sense have never actually been around animals like these and they don't have a clue! Ask any farmer in the area here what he thinks of the idea and the people who want to do it, every single one of them would be willing to shoot the Coyotes/Wolves on sight and tar&feather the people who brought them! Of course all those folks who love Wolves and 'Yotes so much think that their beef and other farm produce comes from the grocery store, I have yet to see a grocery store with a feed lot out back!

[jcwit]

Grey wolf reintroduction to carefully selected areas and effectively controlled by hunting, trapping, and other effective measures with compensation regarding losses to ranchers and farmers could be a great boon to the hunters and conservationists if done properly IMO, but it seems obvious that the voice of reason will not win out here and alas this will become another disaster due to man's lack of ability to exercise dominion over what we are responsible for. I'm stepping off my soap box so anyone with an opposing view on the subject can rip my take on this to shreds, as is their right.

Well said, and well put!

[M-Tecs]

Reintroducing the wolf or any other species with hands tied regarding controlling their numbers is absurd, and I don't know how it could be viewed any other way by anyone concerned with the success of the program.
Grey wolf reintroduction to carefully selected areas and effectively controlled by hunting, trapping, and other effective measures with compensation regarding losses to ranchers and farmers could be a great boon to the hunters and conservationists if done properly IMO,

And were has this worked as planned? I hasn't worked in Northen MN, Idaho or the area's outside of Yellowstone.

[ballistim]

And were has this worked as planned? I hasn't worked in Northen MN, Idaho or the area's outside of Yellowstone.

I also said that it probably wouldn't work for the reasons that I gave, not disagreeing with you.

[M-Tecs]

.
Grey wolf reintroduction to carefully selected areas and effectively controlled by hunting, trapping, and other effective measures with compensation regarding losses to ranchers and farmers could be a great boon to the hunters and conservationists if done properly IMO.

I question the logic in the above statement. We as taxpayers pay for the reintroduction, than we have to work to control them, as hunters we incur a dramatic decrease in the deer, elk and moose population which will likely lead to an increase in fees to cover the lost revenue and again as tax payers we have to cover the losses to ranchers and farmers. I fail to see how this is a great boon to the hunters and conservationists???

[ballistim]

I question the logic in the above statement. We as taxpayers pay for the reintroduction,than we have to work to control them, and as hunters we incur a dramaticdecrease in the deer, elk and moose population which will likely lead to anincrease in fees to cover the lost revenue and again as tax payers we have tocover the losses to ranchers and farmers. I fail to see how this is a great boon to the hunters andconservationists???



Like I said I knew that some (probably many, even most) wouldn't agree with me, no problem.

Tim

[MtGun44]

Wolves are bad news. Packs of smart, vicious, pitiless and relentless meat eating machines roaming
the countryside is not a good thing, regardless of the opinion of soft hearted city folks that will never
have to deal with the devastation they can wreak on their children, pets or livestock.

Folks like the pretty pictures on calendars, and don't want to see the ugly, blood drenched
corpses of the thousands of animals dying in agony as they are literally ripped apart while
still alive that are the absolute daily reality of these vicious killers. Every wolf, every day
wakes up and spends the day looking for something to kill.

Extermination was a good thing. Reintroduction was an intentional plan to eliminate
sport hunting in this country by the "green" fascists that hate guns, hunting and the
freedom of that lifestyle. They want everyone in tight cities, living in apartments so
that they can be easily monitored and controlled.

[jcwit]

Wolves are bad news. Packs of smart, vicious, pitiless and relentless meat eating machines roaming
the countryside is not a good thing, regardless of the opinion of soft hearted city folks that will never
have to deal with the devastation they can wreak on their children, pets or livestock.

Folks like the pretty pictures on calendars, and don't want to see the ugly, blood drenched
corpses of the thousands of animals dying in agony as they are literally ripped apart while
still alive that are the absolute daily reality of these vicious killers. Every wolf, every day
wakes up and spends the day looking for something to kill.

Extermination was a good thing. Reintroduction was an intentional plan to eliminate
sport hunting in this country by the "green" fascists that hate guns, hunting and the
freedom of that lifestyle. They want everyone in tight cities, living in apartments so
that they can be easily monitored and controlled.

Mother nature really isn't very nice, is she?

[blackthorn]

Quote “I want the wolves to comeback. Incidentally, I am opposed to the keystone pipeline. I figureinconvenience and jobs arent worth raping the land for.” With respect to the wolves, Mtgun44(#118) is right on the money! To those who subscribe to the aboveposition regarding a pipeline, let me ask you a question. Are you one of those hardliners that take theposition that: thou shalt not cut one more tree, kill one more wolf, or put inone more pipeline, etc. etc. ad-nauseum? Do you actually believe that position is sustainable, or do you at leastaccept that oil will be moved from where it is produced to where it isprocessed or consumed? Whether you likeit or not, oil IS going to move! I willeven concede that there are going to be spills, regardless of the method usedto move it. So it really comes down to aquestion of whether you feel a pipeline spill will be more hurtful to the environmentthan a huge super tanker sinking off your coast, or a train crash, perhaps witha huge fireball in one of your cities? Ibelieve a pipeline can be built that has more safeguards built in than anyother method of moving oil from point A to B!

[dualsport]

Bingo!! #118 wins a cupie doll. The "people" at the top of these save the 'whatever' groups don't actually care about the wolves. They want a world without us in it. Eliminate the game, eliminate hunting, eliminate the voting block we represent. They win. It's about control.

[blackthorn]

I apologize for the run-together words in my last post. I did the post in a word document and copied it to the forum. In the process---well---there you go!

[M-Tecs]

Bingo!! #118 wins a cupie doll. The "people" at the top of these save the 'whatever' groups don't actually care about the wolves. They want a world without us in it. Eliminate the game, eliminate hunting, eliminate the voting block we represent. They win. It's about control.

100% correct. BTW its lucky for them I don't get to pick what and where reintroduction happens. I am not stating this in jest. I personally would like to see thousands of free roaming hungry tigers and grizzly bears introduced into all the major urban areas including the one I live in.:popcorn:

[montana_charlie]

I've seen feral dogs on my property that I'm convinced are a coyote/dog crossbreed and have read of problems with them in other areas due to their lack of fear of humans. Once again, it will require attacks on prominent citizens or their pets to draw attention to wolves, coyotes & hybrids moving into populated areas and simply doing what they are supposed to do, which is surviving by any means available to them, and coyotes in particular are extremely skilled at adapting to whatever their surroundings are and thriving even in the face of minimal regulations for their control, which does not seem to deter their numbers which is a win-win situation for hunters and trappers. Reintroducing the wolf or any other species with hands tied regarding controlling their numbers is absurd, and I don't know how it could be viewed any other way by anyone concerned with the success of the program.
Grey wolf reintroduction to carefully selected areas and effectively controlled by hunting, trapping, and other effective measures with compensation regarding losses to ranchers and farmers could be a great boon to the hunters and conservationists if done properly IMO, but it seems obvious that the voice of reason will not win out here and alas this will become another disaster due to man's lack of ability to exercise dominion over what we are responsible for. I'm stepping off my soap box so anyone with an opposing view on the subject can rip my take on this to shreds, as is their right.
I won't disagree with the bulk of your comment, but you have your tense wrong.

You use the future tense when you should be using past tense.

The voice of reason did not win out, and it became a disaster.

Now, we are trying to come from behind to regain 'dominion' of an ecosystem which was working pretty well, while being opposed at every turn by die-hard greenies with an agenda ... and ignorant stargazers like those found in this thread.

CM

[ballistim]

I won't disagree with the bulk of your comment, but you have your tense wrong.

You use the future tense when you should be using past tense.

The voice of reason did not win out it became a disaster.

Now, we are trying to come from behind to regain control of an ecosystem which was working pretty well, while being opposed at every turn by die-hard greenies with an agenda ... and the ignorant stargazers like those found in this thread.

CM
I see your point, should have stated what is obviously wrong already and has been done wrong up to this point, and failed to say so. Thanks for pointing that out.

[TXGunNut]

Trying to re-establish a wilderness area and it's delicate balance is like trying to unscramble an egg. Ain't gonna happen. City folks that want this think they have seen the wilderness from the windows of their cars or on TV. We're talking about choosing between wolves and livestock, game, people, pets. Easy choice for me. Not likely to see a wolf in my hunting area but I do know when to apply the SSS principle.

[NavyVet1959]

Yes dogs too are a serious problem and in some ways even more so than Coyotes, the Coyotes are simply shot on sight and that's the end of it but usually dogs belong to someone and as much of a problem as they might be I simply can not and will not shoot someone's pet until they have a chance to resolve the problem. If I can identify the owner I will warn them, otherwise I will shoot to scare the first two times but the third time they show up it's time to fire up the backhoe and just keep my mouth shut. This has happened more than once and it's probably the hardest thing I have had to do, still if the owner is no more responsible than that then what happens is ultimately their fault but I will at least give them a chance first.

My dog (a pit bull) stayed on my property and did not care in the least about the lifestock. I don't think it was unreasonable for me to expect the dogs of others to stay on their property. I guess you could say that I gave them a warning shot because I didn't have a scope and there was a good chance that I might miss the first shot. More often than not, I was using a .22LR or shotgun. The shotgun likely just peppered them with pellets and caused them to run away -- I used BB shot. If they were running away, I didn't bother shooting since I knew that I wasn't likely to be hitting a running dog. But, if they were obviously stalking a cow/calf, they were moving slow enough that I had a pretty good chance of hitting them. I like dogs and don't enjoy having to shoot them -- whether they are a neighbor's who were chasing our cattle or my one of my own dogs that that needed to get put down for whatever reason. Cats, on the other hand, well, more often than not, they are vermin as far as I'm concerned and I have as little sympathy for them as I have for a 'possum or racoon that is getting into the garbage can.

[starmac]

For those that think they should be introduced to certain areas but managed, my question is how do you propose to manage them. They will never stay in any certain area as they just didn't get the memo that they have boundaries. Hunters, natives, farmers and ranchers never managed them even back when everyone carried a gun and shot on site. It finally took poisin to manage their numbers, something we won't see again in my lifetime. Coyotes were shot on site, hunted and trapped all through their native range, poisin was the only thing that controlled their numbers. Since poisin has been outlawed, they have still been shot on site,hunted,trapped, and shot out of govt. helicopters, all the while expanding their numbers and range to many times what was original.
Talk of wolves keeping the yote numbers down, doesn't seem to work either, we have plenty of wolves (always have) and non native coyotes have even moved this far north.
I don't think poisin will ever be allowed again, and doubt the wolf numbers and range will ever do anything but increase from here on out.

[MUSTANG]

Growing up in the Panhandle of Texas, a "Bait Bomb" was used when coyote numbers got to large. As I understand it, they were banned in the 60's.

[Three44s]

Imagine getting on a wagon train in 1843 at St. Louis and heading for Oregon Territory!

You are $%@#$%! bent on getting away from Govmint and people! A fresh start if you will.

After many arduous miles and twarting multiple hazzards ........ you finnaly arrive.

What stock you saved from the journey are now being attacked by wolves, bears, cougars and coyotes!

You call an area meeting and form a TAXING DISTRICT! The purpose of which was to hire hunters and trappers to stop the carnage of their livestock.

And that folks is history ......... a fact! This happened in the Willamette valley way back in the begining of settlement!

Now, do any of you for even one moment think that those folks were bouncing along on a wooden wheeled wagon or walking many miles over arduous and dangerous terrain .........

............ JUST so they could form a TAXING DISTRICT?

HUH?

Or do you as the record reads, believe that in fact they did so to save themselves from starvation?

And remember, this wolf was "Cascadia" ..... the smallest wolf ........ smaller than the true Yellowstone wolf that Clinton's cronnies exterminated by dumping the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf upon.

Now, if there are reminants of Cascadia ... our true wolf of the Pacific Northwest actually left and a lot of folks believe they still reside in small numbers on the Yakama Reservation, the Northern Wolf will wipe them out as well.

So again, I ask where is the government ......... dumping and protecting an invasive wolf that has more killing ability than the Yellowstone wolf and the Cascadia wolf put together .......

............ Where is this government ......... when we ask it to obey it's own Endangered Species law?

And where do apologists get off ........... defending illegal government actions?

It's a matter of court record and elsewhere that the US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a permit to themselves calling the Canadian wolf introduction ......... NOT A REINTRODUCTION ....... but a permit to introduce this new wolf ......... "a small and experimental population".

And the Tenth Circuit of Appeals would not question it ....... they rubber stamped the genocide of the Yellowstone wolf ..... the true native.

How anyone can face this truth with straight face and claim that USFWS actions in this case are for the good of the environment ........ and defend it ...... is beyond me.

And it's a bald faced lie!

Three 44s

[bassnbuck]

I live in northern Minnesota forest zone, wolves range. Our deer herd is down from a couple of bad winters and too many wolves. They will be expanding their range without the feds help when they run out of deer here. Sharpen up your shovels.:-|

[jcwit]

Ah well, It is what it is, and no amount of arguing or posting history or whatever on this forum is going to change what will happen. Furthermore none of us here know for a certain as to what will happen.

Opinions will have no vote!

[MaryB]

I had to face down a pack of over 12 coyotes/coydogs one winter. Went to take my garbage out and they got between me and the house. 5 went down to 9mm pistol shots before the rest got the idea it was wise to leave. That convinced me I needed something with more than 10 rounds by the door. I grab the sks now on the way out. It has a red dot on it and works well close in. Coyotes haven't been as thick this year. Killed 2 is all and one had went after a 3 year old in town. Was a coydog by the fur colors.



I have a soft spot for wolfdogs, but that is a completely different animal from a wild full blooded wolf. We had one wolfdog who was 75% Grey (timber) Wolf. Smokeywolf was an amazing animal and integrated well with our family (pack). But, he still was not 100% Grey Wolf. I would not recommend to anyone to adopt a full blooded wolf for a pet. They are almost always too smart, too curious, too willful and too powerful. We've had 3 wolfdogs over the last 20 years and have done thousands of hours of study.

Wolves are beautiful critters and hopefully can have a place in the ecosystem. However, the places they used to occupy have long since disappeared. I do remember that when the wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, the justification was that the once overpopulated elk herds had decimated the browse and it was now causing reduced birth numbers and low birth weights in elk calves. This allowed the bears to be able to take most of the surviving calves during their first Summer.

As far as who should determine where wolves should be reintroduced, the only one's who should have say so over that are qualified biologists and those who reside in the area in which the wolves are to be released. The residents of the area proposed as a new wolf habitat should have the last word as to whether they should have to share their home with a predator that could take their stock, their pets and even small children.

Over population by coyotes is a result of no wolves to keep their numbers in check. However, if I had to face down a wolf or a coyote, the latter would be my choice.

Somebody said that the government should not be trusted to make this decision. They're dog-gone right about that. Trusting the government is a completely ridiculous notion. I'd sooner trust a pack of wolves.

smokeywolf

[MaryB]

How about reintroducing them in ghetto areas? Cut down on gang members and drug dealers at night!


No way should that happen even to a Wolf! Forcing them to live on that diet would definitely be animal cruelty, Lol!

[MaryB]

Turn it into a fur for my bed, let the crows have the carcass. Local farmers won't complain.


I live in northern Minnesota forest zone, wolves range. Our deer herd is down from a couple of bad winters and too many wolves. They will be expanding their range without the feds help when they run out of deer here. Sharpen up your shovels.:-|

[Rally]

The wolves are not being managed through biology, but by sentiment. They are the posterchild of the animal activist and the government agencies are just happy to make a career out of "studying" them until they retire. Even the last two years when we had a limited season the DNR used the program to raise money, and if you did harvest a legal wolf, you couldn't sell to an international market, because the government would not issue a Cites tag to ship it over an international border. In effect the goverment is givng the wolf the status of a trophy animal. The limits were kept lower than they could have been, and just enough to keep the application fees coming in. Even if you were lucky enough to draw a tag the means of take were limited to again tie the hands of the permit holder. This last season the zones were closed early because the trappers were so successful so quickly. Might be more around than they estimate!!
The estimates to verify the populations are done in Feb, when the population is at it's lowest cycle of the year. The published estimates have been about the same for about fifteen years. The populations of deer, moose, grouse, rabbits and beaver in some areas have been in decline for the last 7 years at least. The DNR claims it's the rough winters. Myself and most of my friends , whom are trappers and out in the bush every day, see evidence to the contrary. I even had a news crew go with me on a winter beaver line, where I showed them a fresh wolf kill of a deer. The irony is that it was in a Wildlife management area. Those pictures didn't make the report , or even mentioned.
The department of Agriculture/ Wildlife service is still going to trap wolves at nuisance locations, at least enough to appease the rancher whom loses livestock, but not enough to control the population and only after the damage has been done. Those few wolves will end up in the dump, with a few being tanned for wildlife displays. Last I heard the total cost per wolf to the taxpayer for that program was several thousand dollars per wolf. The trappers of this state could/ will take more wolves for the price of a license, in a month long season, at no cost to the taxpayer, and would utilize the resource.
The real truth behind the current "management plan" is that the resource is being wasted, to the detriment of other displaced species, at taxpayer expense,in an area where the locals are tired of the wasteful practice/program. It's no secret the wolves are being managed but what a waste of the resource.

[MaryB]

It is a crime to waste the pelts like that. They could auction finished pelts and make money for wildlife management. Stupidity of those who think wilderness is the local park.

[RogerDat]

Coyotes and wolves have very different character traits from my own experience and those of others. Coyotes for example will mix in with urban sprawl very well. Pockets of suburbs don't bother them, a new subdivision or several does not really bother them. Wolves don't really seem to choose being around people nearly as much.

The presence of coyotes does not really impact the deer heard nearly as much as a wolf population. To the point where deer will change behavior if wolves are in the area, avoiding valleys near streams where they are more easily trapped by a pack. Good for the vegetation in the valley and those critters that live in that vegetation. Deer will also become more wary and reclusive, it is entirely possible that the deer population does not drop all that dramatically so much as hunters don't find them where expected or manage to see them as easily.

Now the small dog population or even good sized ones have a lot to fear from coyotes, sheep too, know a friend that had to purchase a llama to guard the sheep from coyotes. Worked too, llama won't tolerate canines and is territorial, powerful and mean. I see a "lost dog" poster at the local stores and can tell you pretty quick depending on area and dog size if that animal is coyote droppings by now.

The fundamental question is does all wilderness exist only to serve our material desires? Or is there a point to having a place where you just don't go if you can't accept being in a wild place where a broken ankle may make you wolf poop. If the only reason for deer is so we can hunt them than anything that reduces our semi-domestic deer herd is bad. If on the other hand one is willing to accept fewer deer found during a hunt in exchange for knowing that the herd is healthier due to natural selection then wolves are ok.

I'm not overly concerned with livestock losses to wolves, some reported cases turn out to be false and if you are going to raise livestock that close to wilderness it sort of comes with the territory. Like I said lower Michigan and I know a sheep farmer with coyote losses at lambing time, could try to kill all the coyotes but not all that fond of rodents they coyotes kill when not bothering the sheep so they tried something else. I do think that some remedial action should take place to protect livestock from a clear and continuing threat by a specific animal. However wiping out that which is an inconvenience and removing all potential threat seems overkill if you will pardon the expression.

Have spent a fair amount of time in wilderness areas, came to terms with the fact that there were bears, and wolves, and coyotes, and snakes there that might not always be nice to me. Only the last one really bothers me, not that I have a special fear or hatred of snakes I just really don't like venomous ones. To easy to find by mistake and I am not faster on the draw than a rattle snake.

[smokeywolf]

Imagine getting on a wagon train in 1843 at St. Louis and heading for Oregon Territory!

You are $%@#$%! bent on getting away from Govmint and people! A fresh start if you will.

After many arduous miles and twarting multiple hazzards ........ you finnaly arrive.

What stock you saved from the journey are now being attacked by wolves, bears, cougars and coyotes!

You call an area meeting and form a TAXING DISTRICT! The purpose of which was to hire hunters and trappers to stop the carnage of their livestock.

And that folks is history ......... a fact! This happened in the Willamette valley way back in the begining of settlement!

Now, do any of you for even one moment think that those folks were bouncing along on a wooden wheeled wagon or walking many miles over arduous and dangerous terrain .........

............ JUST so they could form a TAXING DISTRICT?

HUH?

Or do you as the record reads, believe that in fact they did so to save themselves from starvation?

And remember, this wolf was "Cascadia" ..... the smallest wolf ........ smaller than the true Yellowstone wolf that Clinton's cronnies exterminated by dumping the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf upon.

Now, if there are reminants of Cascadia ... our true wolf of the Pacific Northwest actually left and a lot of folks believe they still reside in small numbers on the Yakama Reservation, the Northern Wolf will wipe them out as well.

So again, I ask where is the government ......... dumping and protecting an invasive wolf that has more killing ability than the Yellowstone wolf and the Cascadia wolf put together .......

............ Where is this government ......... when we ask it to obey it's own Endangered Species law?

And where do apologists get off ........... defending illegal government actions?

It's a matter of court record and elsewhere that the US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a permit to themselves calling the Canadian wolf introduction ......... NOT A REINTRODUCTION ....... but a permit to introduce this new wolf ......... "a small and experimental population".

And the Tenth Circuit of Appeals would not question it ....... they rubber stamped the genocide of the Yellowstone wolf ..... the true native.

How anyone can face this truth with straight face and claim that USFWS actions in this case are for the good of the environment ........ and defend it ...... is beyond me.

And it's a bald faced lie!

Three 44s

Three 44s, don't mean to veer off subject, but I've spent a fair amount of time studying wolves and not run across material that refers to more than 2 species of wolves (Grey - Canis Lupus and Red - Canis Rufus) on the North American Continent and although there are numerous sub-species, I've not read of a subspecies exclusive to Yellowstone, nor have I read of one called Cascadia.

Not doubting your info nor intending any sarcasm, but for my own enlightenment would like to know the source of your info on these wolves.

smokeywolf

[Multigunner]

The Yellow Stone wolves were most likely members of this subspecies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plains_wolf

The Canadian Grey Wolf is 30% larger than the wolves that originally inhabited Yellow Stone.
A few Plains wolves still exist in Minnesota and some believe these should have been introduced to Yellowstone rather than the Canadian wolves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wolves_in_Yellowstone

Had they introduced the Minnesota wolf to Yellow Stone it might have insured survival of the Plains wolf which is better suited to the climate and food sources of the lower 48 states.

[10x]

It is of note that introducing a highly efficient predator into an ecosystem where the predator/ prey populations are in a state of balance will destroy that balance.
Bottom line, the introduction of wolves is an ecological disaster in the making.

[9w1911]

LOL it is not an ecological disaster to rid a species from the genome?
Man is such a killer, and has encroached and scorched every where man has been. To say that the ecosystem needs to conform to man's norm is such a convoluted and self centered view. American Indians seemed to do quite fine living with wolves, cougars and coyotes. But then again we had to kill all the Indians in order to full fill our destiny.
Makes me sad the animals suffer at the brunt of human incompetence and ignorance.
Lastly learn how to build a fence, educate yourself on the ecology you live in and look inward in what your actions do to the environment.

I dont mind speaking for animals as I sure as hell will never speak for a human. Not much more of a vile, dishonest, torturous mammal on the
planet than man.

[blackthorn]

"Oh bother" said Poo as he racked his rifle and reached for a shovel----

[roadie]

LOL it is not an ecological disaster to rid a species from the genome?
Man is such a killer, and has encroached and scorched every where man has been. To say that the ecosystem needs to conform to man's norm is such a convoluted and self centered view. American Indians seemed to do quite fine living with wolves, cougars and coyotes. But then again we had to kill all the Indians in order to full fill our destiny.
Makes me sad the animals suffer at the brunt of human incompetence and ignorance.
Lastly learn how to build a fence, educate yourself on the ecology you live in and look inward in what your actions do to the environment.

I dont mind speaking for animals as I sure as hell will never speak for a human. Not much more of a vile, dishonest, torturous mammal on the
planet than man.

Well, there is that.....

Is that there what they call an "inconvenient truth"?

[montana_charlie]

I dont mind speaking for animals as I sure as hell will never speak for a human. Not much more of a vile, dishonest, torturous mammal on the planet than man.
When I read something like this I wonder how dangerous to himself and others is a person gripped by such overwhelming self-disgust.

[Plate plinker]

So answer me this. how does a rancher put up wolf proof fence for 5 square miles or 20 or 50 or more? Do you know the cost of the endeavor? And that's all fine if you could afford it which they can not, but then the maintenance on that type of fencing is out of sight. Go work a ranch and you will get educated real quick on that stuff.

[McFred]

Predator extinction? Man made problem.
Government intrusion? Man made problem.
Reintroduction of predators? Man made problem.
Mismanagement of predators? Man made problem.

Seems to me that the best solution is less people. The "problems" with wolves are either indirectly related to money problems or personal security problems. All those issues could certainly be fixed with fewer people. :D If you think 7 billion is a lot then just you wait!

Me? I'm in favor of keeping predators. I own no livestock and have no problem walking around in the woods with predators. I've got a big brain and opposable thumbs to defend myself with. If that is insufficient then I should re-evaluate where I live and what level of risk I am willing to accept. I for one like the variety of life in the outdoors. If some of you have not been outside the USA to a REAL desert then I suggest you do so. You will gain a new appreciation for a utterly devoid landscape. Rock and sand and maybe a few insects. Now that's bleak. Playing favorites for one species like a deer or elk over a prairie dog, or wolf is narrow minded.

To the criticisms of myopic people incapable of seeing the "Big Picture" imagine this discussion if it weren't for all those ignorant, tree-hugging city dwellers. Those freeloading ******** are where phones, computers and guns come from; the foundation of this forum. What's the likelihood that the servers here are maintained by a farmer in rural Nebraska? Be sure not to take them for granted, hateful to a rural state of mind they may be (Matthew 7:5 fits, so does Matthew 19:16-19, and John 8:1-11 etc.).

Not to mock faith, but quoting any prophet or messiah's words in English makes me highly suspicious of the use of those words and the people that claim them to be straight from a God. I learned a lot from the game "Telephone" in kindergarten. I'm absolutely sure nothing's lost in translation over a few millennia, am I right?

It is interesting too that some of the harshest words and criticisms of others' dissenting point of view come from those in the suburbs of major metropolitan centers.

Lastly, for everyone's whining about misuse of taxpayer money, a few million on a fish, a stork or a wolf pales in comparison to the $1.5T bank bailout that everyone's already forgotten about. $1 million in taxes annually is 30¢ a year per American. Again, think bigger picture. Are there bigger fish to fry?

I find it difficult to live as a moderate in the USA. Lots of finger pointing and blame and naught to show for it.

[starmac]

Do you get your meat at the grocery store that no animals are harmed in??

[McFred]

I get my meat from a grocery store. They were killed for their meat, and I'm fine with that. I am well aware where my food comes from and it does not depend on cattle or sheep ranchers. My neighbors would not appreciate me keeping chickens in my yard.

[jcwit]

When I read something like this I wonder how dangerous to himself and others is a person gripped by such overwhelming self-disgust.

Name me an animal that kills it's own species with such glory as man does!

[NavyVet1959]

Name me an animal that kills it's own species with such glory as man does!

The issue is not that we are killing our own species, but rather that we are not always killing the right ones of our species. For some, their greatest contribution to the species would be their death.

[montana_charlie]

I get my meat from a grocery store. They were killed for their meat, and I'm fine with that. I am well aware where my food comes from and it does not depend on cattle or sheep ranchers. My neighbors would not appreciate me keeping chickens in my yard.
So ... chicken is the only meat you eat.
No comment ...


I find it difficult to live as a moderate in the USA.
Does that mean you are more comfortable as a progressive ... or that you will be leaving soon?

[montana_charlie]

Name me an animal that kills it's own species with such glory as man does!
Chimpanzes are pretty fond of it ... but lack the tools to get proficient.

[M-Tecs]

Name me an animal that kills it's own species with such glory as man does!

Two off the top of my head are brown bear boars killing the cubs so the sow can breed sooner and lion packs killing other lions that are not part of the pack. All of the weasle family and fox kill for the sake of killing.

[dualsport]

Speaking of 'wilderness', how does the Wilderness Act not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act? People who need wheels to move around are legally banned from "Wilderness". This has to have come up somewhere before?

[oldred]

Pro or con the bottom line is, and seems to be overlooked by the pro wolf side, that PEOPLE POPULATE THESE AREAS NOW! They did not, at least in the numbers and in the same manner, when the Wolf roamed freely. The problem is that reintroduction of the Wolf without removing the people who now occupy this space is what will not work, as I said before reintroducing the Wolf to solve the problem of it's disappearance from an area without removing the people first is only using half the equation. I am not saying that it would not be better to remove the human population and reintroduce the Wolf and any other species to certain areas but good luck with that one! The problem is and always will be, no matter whether a person wants or does not want the Wolf reintroduced, is that people and the Wolves can not peaceably co-exist. Again, why not just leave them where they are now and leave well enough alone?

[ballistim]

Two off the top of my head are brown bear boars killing the cubs so the sow can breed sooner and lion packs killing other lions that are not part of the pack. All of the weasle family and fox kill for the sake of killing.

I thought of this regarding boar bears, don't know if it's true but have been told red squirrels will chew the nuts off fox squirrels, I dunno if it's true but they are a pain when they spot you deer hunting, so I pack a slingshot so as not to disturb my hunt.

[montana_charlie]

Again, why not just leave them where they are now and leave well enough alone?
Introduction (or reintroduction) began in January of 1995.
For those who are counting, that was twenty years ago.

It is far beyond the point where we can "leave them where they are now" because where they are now is not where they were in 1994.
We also can't "leave well enough alone" because things haven't been 'well enough' for a long time.

You started this thread by saying, "This is not a rant nor is it an anti/pro wolf statement, simply I want to know how most folks feel about the re-establishment of grey wolves?"

You then said, "So back to the question, honestly do we REALLY want wolves back in areas where they were killed off?

Your remarks (before, and now) seem to say that you see wolf reintroduction as some future project which should be reconsidered before we do something stupid.

You are late to the table ...

CM

[jcwit]

The issue is not that we are killing our own species, but rather that we are not always killing the right ones of our species. For some, their greatest contribution to the species would be their death.

LOL, Ain't that the truth!!

[jcwit]

Two off the top of my head are brown bear boars killing the cubs so the sow can breed sooner and lion packs killing other lions that are not part of the pack. All of the weasle family and fox kill for the sake of killing.

Notice I mentioned "glory".

[Three44s]

Three 44s, don't mean to veer off subject, but I've spent a fair amount of time studying wolves and not run across material that refers to more than 2 species of wolves (Grey - Canis Lupus and Red - Canis Rufus) on the North American Continent and although there are numerous sub-species, I've not read of a subspecies exclusive to Yellowstone, nor have I read of one called Cascadia.

Not doubting your info nor intending any sarcasm, but for my own enlightenment would like to know the source of your info on these wolves.

smokeywolf

Smokeywolf,

Here's a link to the Wyoming Farm Bureau v. Babbit case:

https://www.animallaw.info/case/wyoming-farm-bureau-v-babbitt

Hope this helps

I am working on the Pacific Northwest issue.

Best regards

Three 44s

[BAGTIC]

Depends on whose ox is being gored.

[BAGTIC]

As I read on another site by 1820 settlers had exterminated elk in Kentucky using on black powder muzzle loading flintlocks firing round balls. Quite an accomplishment that wolves, bear, cougars and the native Americans had not managed to do over millions of years. This despite a settler population that was a pittance compared to today's.

The threat to this world is not wolves. It is Bulldozers, obstetricians, preachers, realtors, etc. We are breeding ourselves out of our God given heritage all because of greed.

[BAGTIC]

Homo sapiens is the most dangerous species on earth. Where and when should we begin giving them a helping hand out the door?

[Three44s]

Homo sapiens is the most dangerous species on earth. Where and when should we begin giving them a helping hand out the door?

Well ........... who's first?

I have a rule ....... those with the idea ........... show us by example!

Three 44s

[bassnbuck]

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attac As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, "There are no `documented' cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans." In order to be "documented" these unreasonable criteria must be met:

1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy.

2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life.

3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.

4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not considered attacks according to the biologists).


ks_on_humans.html Now I understand why there have not been any documented wolf attacks.

[popper]

Will the wild pig got 'protected' status? Bison would be eliminated by plowing under all the native buffalo grass. The 'wild life' repopulated Europe after the plague wiped out the human population. I remember seeing the results of shotshell coyote traps all over the plains. Mom won't eat meat as it means an animal got killed. But she loves her bread - guess the seed doesn't 'rate' status. All put here to feed US.

[birddog]

Not reading what everyone else has said, I look at this from a wide open view and see that we humans are to blame more so than the creatures that were here long before us. It is us that have encroached upon them and forced many of the apex predators into smaller tracts of land and their numbers drop. Looking back on the grizzly, wolves, mountain lions that needed a large area to survive. Ya they do fine in the national parks and in the areas that have closed hunting on them. But all the DA moved in next door to them and they P and M when their little FeFe cat or yorkie dog gets ate. It's to bad they don't get a better appetite for human flesh. It may make that trip to the wilderness areas a little more hair raising!!
Charlie

[10x]

Will the wild pig got 'protected' status? Bison would be eliminated by plowing under all the native buffalo grass. The 'wild life' repopulated Europe after the plague wiped out the human population. I remember seeing the results of shotshell coyote traps all over the plains. Mom won't eat meat as it means an animal got killed. But she loves her bread - guess the seed doesn't 'rate' status. All put here to feed US.

Locally hundreds of thousands of acres are sterile cereal crop monocultures. With zero til that uses pesticides and herbicides crop land that used to provide habitat for wildlife can't even support mice. Once the combines go over that land it has zero food left for wildlife, no weeds, no seeds, and no insects.
Couple that with the game ranchers putting up game proof fences that keep wild ungulates from utilizing private property winter habitat and local wild life has been decimated.
Vegetarians do not realize the ecological disaster they have wrought with their demand for cereal crops and pulse crops.

[waksupi]

130892
130894
130895
130896

[jcwit]

Now show some gut piles left by hunters or even animals shot and wounded and left to die.

[MUSTANG]

I prefer to remain at the top of the food chain.

[NavyVet1959]

Homo sapiens is the most dangerous species on earth. Where and when should we begin giving them a helping hand out the door?

Well, we can start by getting rid of all the regulations that are to protect us from ourselves. Let's go back to not requiring seat belts and having rather unforgiving metal dashboards in cars.

[NavyVet1959]

I prefer to remain at the top of the food chain.

Agreed, my primary goal in life is to be at the top of the food chain. But if you really look at it, the food chain is in fact a circle. When we die, scavengers, bugs, etc end up eating us...

[smokeywolf]

At the risk of sounding like a cit-iot which I'm not. Although the rancher must be able to go to bed at night and not have to worry about losing thousands of dollars in livestock to half dozen wolves, it is ironic that the American Indian was better able to live with or at least tolerate the wolf than the White Man. Of course the Indian didn't decimate the ungulate population thereby wiping out the majority of the wolf's food source. Again ironic that we wanted what the Indian had and we hated him for fighting back. Just like the Indian, we want the territory and game that the wolf also wants or needs and just like the Indian, we hate him for not willingly trotting away into extinction.

Don't mistake my post for favoring the wolf over the rancher; I do not. Ranchers have more than enough challenges to staying solvent and seeing to it that there is something left to pass on to the next generation, without having their livestock and bank account decimated by a pack of wolves.

Although we were given dominion over the animals, I think if the good Lord didn't mean for there to be wolves in the ecosystem, he'd have told Noah to load two of each critter on the ark, except wolves; leave them behind.

We are caretakers of this planet and in spite of being given dominion over the animals, I don't think it was God's intention that we assume the power to intentionally and decisively eradicate a particular species that He created from the face of the planet that He also created.

smokeywolf

[MaryB]

I am quite capable of maintaining and building the server this place runs on. And I live in the middle of nowhere prairie of MN


Predator extinction? Man made problem.
Government intrusion? Man made problem.
Reintroduction of predators? Man made problem.
Mismanagement of predators? Man made problem.

Seems to me that the best solution is less people. The "problems" with wolves are either indirectly related to money problems or personal security problems. All those issues could certainly be fixed with fewer people. :D If you think 7 billion is a lot then just you wait!

Me? I'm in favor of keeping predators. I own no livestock and have no problem walking around in the woods with predators. I've got a big brain and opposable thumbs to defend myself with. If that is insufficient then I should re-evaluate where I live and what level of risk I am willing to accept. I for one like the variety of life in the outdoors. If some of you have not been outside the USA to a REAL desert then I suggest you do so. You will gain a new appreciation for a utterly devoid landscape. Rock and sand and maybe a few insects. Now that's bleak. Playing favorites for one species like a deer or elk over a prairie dog, or wolf is narrow minded.

To the criticisms of myopic people incapable of seeing the "Big Picture" imagine this discussion if it weren't for all those ignorant, tree-hugging city dwellers. Those freeloading ******** are where phones, computers and guns come from; the foundation of this forum. What's the likelihood that the servers here are maintained by a farmer in rural Nebraska? Be sure not to take them for granted, hateful to a rural state of mind they may be (Matthew 7:5 fits, so does Matthew 19:16-19, and John 8:1-11 etc.).

Not to mock faith, but quoting any prophet or messiah's words in English makes me highly suspicious of the use of those words and the people that claim them to be straight from a God. I learned a lot from the game "Telephone" in kindergarten. I'm absolutely sure nothing's lost in translation over a few millennia, am I right?

It is interesting too that some of the harshest words and criticisms of others' dissenting point of view come from those in the suburbs of major metropolitan centers.

Lastly, for everyone's whining about misuse of taxpayer money, a few million on a fish, a stork or a wolf pales in comparison to the $1.5T bank bailout that everyone's already forgotten about. $1 million in taxes annually is 30¢ a year per American. Again, think bigger picture. Are there bigger fish to fry?

I find it difficult to live as a moderate in the USA. Lots of finger pointing and blame and naught to show for it.

[montana_charlie]

Although the rancher must be able to go to bed at night and not have to worry about losing thousands of dollars in livestock to half dozen wolves, it is ironic that the American Indian was better able to live with or at least tolerate the wolf than the White Man. Of course the Indian didn't decimate the ungulate population thereby wiping out the majority of the wolf's food source.
The Indian didn't worry about his 'livestock' at night because the only animals he called his own were some dogs and a horse herd (in the West). The dogs were expected to fend for themselves, and there were guards out with the horses at all times.

The 'ungulates' weren't considered property, and Indians expected that Manitou would always make more available to be hunted.

Western plains (nomadic) Indians DID decimate everything in every area where he camped. Being purely survival oriented, he stripped the land of everything usable within a radius of (perhaps) several miles ... and he moved on when that zone became so fouled that nothing would stay there.

But, they didn't come close to eliminating the ungulates because there just were not enough Indians to eat that much food.
It's often said that the Indian used every part of the buffalo.
While that's mainly true, he didn't do it to 'be a good manager of natural resources'.
He did it because over the centuries he developed a need for every part.

And, he didn't limit his take in order to 'be a good manager of natural resources'.
He needed (say) buffalo hides to cover his tepees.
But, he only had so many tepees and only needed so many hides.
To have more hides to lug from campsite to campsite would be much work for nothing.

If they had seen any reason for wiping out the buffalo herds, they would have.
With no reason, the effort would have been much work for nothing ... something nobody would undertake, not even white men.

[largom]

As I read on another site by 1820 settlers had exterminated elk in Kentucky using on black powder muzzle loading flintlocks firing round balls. Quite an accomplishment that wolves, bear, cougars and the native Americans had not managed to do over millions of years. This despite a settler population that was a pittance compared to today's.

The threat to this world is not wolves. It is Bulldozers, obstetricians, preachers, realtors, etc. We are breeding ourselves out of our God given heritage all because of greed.


Not only did they eliminate the Elk and Buffalo they almost eliminated the White Tailed Deer from the entire East coast mainly for their hides.
The Great American Disease = GREED

Larry

[jcwit]

I'm 70+ years old, I remember there being no deer here in No. Indiana, NONE at all.

Deer were brought back and now we have herds of deer, 2 days ago we had 11 in our back yard and we live in town.

Farmers complain about the crop damage they do.

Myhap we should exterminate the deer again from Indiana.

[MtGun44]

Don't worry, the wolves will exterminate them for you.

[ktw]

I am a timberland manager in the upper peninsula of Michigan. My tree farm runs in the neighborhood of 125 sq miles. We have had wolves here since the late 1980s. Between the federal forest system, state forests and corporate/commercial forest land, people like me manage two thirds of the land area in the upper peninsula. By definition, no one lives or raises livestock on these lands.

I hunt deer. I have raised two daughters here on rural property outside of town. I am glad that we have a wolves here in the UP. They are welcome on the property under my control. I would object to the public hunting or trapping them there.

Wolves have had an impact on deer populations, but to nowhere near the extent the deer hunting community has claimed. Our deer numbers are down recently due to a couple of bad winters. That all gets blamed on wolves when it's really a function of poor winter habitat, a condition created by maintaining the high deer populations favored by many in the deer hunting community, over an extended period of time.

The wolves do push the deer around more. The deer tend to be on edge all year now rather than just during the hunting seasons. This has had a positive impact on the habitat and it has made it easier for me to naturally regenerate timber stands. It has made it harder to see many deer at any given location despite the fact that the numbers aren't all that different over a wide area.

I don't have any issues with a limited wolf hunt in areas where there have been conflicts among the few, scattered livestock operations we have here. I think livestock producers should be permitted to shoot them on their own lands year around, on sight. This was pretty much the situation we had here under state management. If the choice came down to exterminating them altogether or leaving them under federal protection, I would choose the latter.

-ktw

[Three44s]

smokeywolf,

Here's some of Conservation Northwest's claims on the wolves:

http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

"Wolves in the Pacific Northwest should likewise retain protection, argues Conservation Northwest, because they have characteristics that make them different from the wolves in the Rocky Mountain area to the east.
DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, Conservation Northwest said in a press release.
“Over time, the coastal wolves adapted to local climatic and habitat conditions, creating a unique genetic profile. … Cascade wolves are different than those in the Rockies in other ways too – they are smaller in size; more reddish brown in color; and eat more salmon when available,” Conservation Northwest’s release said."

************************************************** ****

Now, this is today's situation ........ but I have seen print where some experts think that the BC coastal wolf was the original wolf here as well. The cycle is just repeating itself.

Three 44s

[Three44s]

wow, i just can't believe, honestly, that some of the opinions expressed could be held by someone with a sincere passion for firearms. It's just stunning.


Isn't the comet Hale Bop comming around soon? Be a nice time for folks that hate Homosapeins to "check out" and ride it around.

I mean really to hate man kind such as some of the residents here do .......... and like the above .... to own guns ............ ?

These same haters:

Live in houses .........

DRIVE CARS and burn fossil fuels ....

Wear clothes made from either animal skins or synthetics (petro origin) or cotton ..... some dirty farmer grew that stuff or knocked a sheep in the head and stole it's coat .... a dirty rancher grew that .......

MADE BABIES ...... yeah ..... more dirty filthy humans to over populate ..........

It's like the bumber sticker: Don't $%! about a farmer with your mouth full!

WELL ......... what are doing in our collective face if you hate humans so much and you are still here .......... B%$%@$#'ing! about it at the same time?

Three 44s

[Omega]

I have no dog in the fight, no pun intended, as far as wolves are concerned but I do have a coyote issue. And while the coyote can be shot on sight here, I have yet to do so. Until this season, I had plenty of of deer and small game on my property so have decided to thin out the coyote population a bit. Though I don't want to exterminate all of them, even if I could, I appreciate being able to manipulate my environment without government interference.
Around here we don't yet have a wild hog issue, and while I like hunting them I would never advocate introducing them to this area. Same goes for any species, human included, that would be detrimental to our current ecological balance.
As I have stated before, I am not religious but do believe that nature knows what it's doing and if a species starts to become a problem she will take care of it somehow be it by using us, disease or natural disaster to thin out the population...Stay tuned.

[smokeywolf]

When you hunt 30,000,000 bison to near extinction, depriving numerous types of predators of their main food supply, then you pretty much have no choice but to start hunting the predators.

[waksupi]

I think it was the University of Texas some years ago who did a study, and came to the conclusion the bison were mostly killed off by the spread of tick fever and blue tongue spread by the cattle herds being pushed north.

[M-Tecs]

The railroads and hide buyers keeped very detailed records of hides and ammo shipped. IIRC is was about 6 million total hides shipped. Current data indicates 10% to 20% were killed by shooting.

[smokeywolf]

Thanks waksupi and M-Tecs. Glad I posted that. It elicited information of which I was unaware.

smokeywolf

[starmac]

What I want to know is when was wolves ever extinct, there has always been wolves, just not the big canadian wolves that some lunatics decided we needed. Only they are a particular breed of lunatics and knew what they were doing, which has nothing to do with wolves except as a means.
Bill Weddle, while he was here put a long thread outlining the REAL reason for the wolf introductions and the end game is to stop hunting eventually.
We don't have many cattle in Alaska, but we do have plenty of wolves even though they are heavily trapped and hunted, even the govt has hunted them for years. Humans can not now and have never been able to wipe them out by hunting and trapping.

Seems like some don't care much for AMERICANS, can't really get my head wrapped around that.

[McFred]

So ... chicken is the only meat you eat. No comment ...

Does that mean you are more comfortable as a progressive ... or that you will be leaving soon?

For a passage-quoting Christian you're not very observant of the Good Book are you? What is it about other people's opinions makes you so abrasive?

I'm glad you're concerned with my diet Mr. Montana. I appreciate some beef occasionally, but if cattle disappeared as the result of depredation from unchecked predators I will not starve. Unfortunate for you I won't be leaving anytime soon. Given that I'm probably younger than you I'm confident I'll live to see you underground before I do leave. So call me names and insinuate what you like it makes no difference to me. [smilie=s:

[McFred]

I am quite capable of maintaining and building the server this place runs on. And I live in the middle of nowhere prairie of MN Fantastic! Thank you, I do enjoy this site. What else do you do in the Middle of Nowhere Prairie MN? I've got family over by Blue Earth that farm there too.

[bassnbuck]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Alfred_Jacob_Miller_-_Hunting_Buffalo_-_Walters_371940190.jpg I`m sure the Indians used every ounce of the buffalo they killed. It amazes me that the only people that want wolves, do not live in wolf country. Minnesota will always have a viable wolf population. They can be hunted and trapped and they will always replenish. The western states had their wolf population under control until the bunny huggers and the government screwed it up. Our deer and moose population is down from a couple of hard winters and disease AND too many wolves. And the wolf hunt is back in court. The anti hunters will be happy when there are so few deer that people stop hunting.

[starmac]

Basenbuck, Thanks for that picture. I don't remember seeing the picture, but have read that the Indians drove them off of cliffs by the hundreds and let most of the rot, and that is exactly what I thought of when everyone was bragging about how they worked with mother nature. Even the great natives who depended on them, did whatever it took to survive.

[bassnbuck]

Starmac, you`re welcome. Great minds think alike, er maybe you should be worried:bigsmyl2:

[waksupi]

I`m sure the Indians used every ounce of the buffalo they killed. It amazes me that the only people that want wolves, do not live in wolf country. Minnesota will always have a viable wolf population. They can be hunted and trapped and they will always replenish. The western states had their wolf population under control until the bunny huggers and the government screwed it up. Our deer and moose population is down from a couple of hard winters and disease AND too many wolves. And the wolf hunt is back in court. The anti hunters will be happy when there are so few deer that people stop hunting.

Indians did not use every bit of a buffalo. Although there was a use for every part, they were just as wasteful as the whites were, many times just taking the tongue and other choice cuts. Reading the accounts from Ft. Union and other posts, the Indians were hide hunting long before the professional hunters came on the scene.

[BruceB]

Basenbuck, Thanks for that picture. I ..... have read that the Indians drove them off of cliffs by the hundreds and let most of the rot, and that is exactly what I thought of when everyone was bragging about how they worked with mother nature.

After living in close proximity to these "natural conservationists" for decades, I call BS on the reverent reputation they hold in LIBERAL circles.

With my very own eyes, I have seen horrendous native wastage of caribou in the North, with dozens of complete carcasses rotting in the spring thaw around native houses. I have seen many caribou wounded by inept native shooting, and NOT followed -up.... they were just allowed to stagger off into the bush to die or survive as best they could. The wounded were likely killed by the wolves that traveled with the herds.


So.... a group of indians runs a hundred bison off a cliff? Think about the logistics! "ONE hundred bison" translates to probably a hundred thousand pounds of bison. What is a native village going to do with that much meat? It would be rotting even before they could BEGIN to process it, let alone "use every scrap". We are speaking here of a matter of only a couple of hours if temps are above freezing.

Again from personal experience, even if the temps ARE below freezing, an unskinned bison carcass will begin to "sour" within an hour or two unless that well-insulated hide is removed. How does one prevent that, when the carcasses are piled high on one another at the cliff's bottom?

Answer.... one doesn't. He cuts out the backstraps and tongues, maybe a few of the accessible quarters.... and the vast bulk of the meat is left to rot.

This native reputation on hunting is a hot-button issue with me. The REALITY is disgusting.

As a result of personal experience, I hold very little respect for the ways of native hunters, even to this day.

[roadie]

After living in close proximity to these "natural conservationists" for decades, I call BS on the reverent reputation they hold in LIBERAL circles.

With my very own eyes, I have seen horrendous native wastage of caribou in the North, with dozens of complete carcasses rotting in the spring thaw around native houses. I have seen many caribou wounded by inept native shooting, and NOT followed -up.... they were just allowed to stagger off into the bush to die or survive as best they could. The wounded were likely killed by the wolves that traveled with the herds.


So.... a group of indians runs a hundred bison off a cliff? Think about the logistics! "ONE hundred bison" translates to probably a hundred thousand pounds of bison. What is a native village going to do with that much meat? It would be rotting even before they could BEGIN to process it, let alone "use every scrap". We are speaking here of a matter of only a couple of hours if temps are above freezing.

Again from personal experience, even if the temps ARE below freezing, an unskinned bison carcass will begin to "sour" within an hour or two unless that well-insulated hide is removed. How does one prevent that, when the carcasses are piled high on one another at the cliff's bottom?

Answer.... one doesn't. He cuts out the backstraps and tongues, maybe a few of the accessible quarters.... and the vast bulk of the meat is left to rot.

This native reputation on hunting is a hot-button issue with me. The REALITY is disgusting.

As a result of personal experience, I hold very little respect for the ways of native hunters, even to this day.


Excellent post Bruce, the myth of native "stewardship" is just that...a myth. They're humans and as humans, tend to be very wasteful, especially when they view a resource as inexhaustible. I wonder how many of those buffalo at the bottom of the heap were still alive when their tongues were cut off and their backstraps gouged out.

I've noticed the outrage, as it were, as to wolves being some kind of killing machine, ripping their prey apart while still living. Of course they do, they're animals hunting and their blood is up and they don't take the time for niceties and they don't care. They use the pack hunting method to their greatest advantage, they've learned that's the best method.

Wolves have been bestowed with supernatural powers by humans, who for the most part, greatly fear them. They're not a killing machine, just critters doing what works best for them. Humans are much more the magnificent killing machine, in that they have adapted to invent and utilize tools. Wolves were here long before the first humans showed up.

I hope wolves don't ever figure out how to use guns, cause we'll be screwed. I also hope them big reintroduced Canadian wolves don't make their way down to Texas....people think they're big now...they'll be humongous in Texas.

[bassnbuck]

rodie, When the wolves get to Texas, I`ll buy a ticket to watch you brand and saddle this;https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7QDOM9kMso1lmSiLT_Wn-70jcoMKYQHEBU0eppTigcutzLggw3Q[smilie=s:

[roadie]

I really don't understand the hysteria and the calls for exterminating the wolves. The wolves ain't the problem...people are the problem. Instead of exterminating wolves, I would think people might be better profited by going after the various agencies who are doing whatever the hell they want without consulting the ones who actually own the land....which, by the way, is the people. Time might be better spent in getting those people in line and doing what they're supposed to do, not what they want to do.

Who told these guys they can do that?

[roadie]

rodie, When the wolves get to Texas, I`ll buy a ticket to watch you brand and saddle this;https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7QDOM9kMso1lmSiLT_Wn-70jcoMKYQHEBU0eppTigcutzLggw3Q[smilie=s:


bassnbuck,
That critter is not a lot different to your average Fido....they're all just critters doing what critters do. At least with a wolf, I know exactly where I stand and where it stands. Wish I could say the same for people and most Fido's.

Have you ever seen what Fido is capable of in a pack setting? They kill just for the fun then.

[waksupi]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19910813&id=IFpYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DvoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6994,1599918

[roadie]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19910813&id=IFpYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DvoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6994,1599918

Not sure what you think we should take from that story. Yup, if a dog is bred with a wolf, you get an animal that can never be trusted because the wolf gene will dominate. Only a fool would expect a different result, interbreeding species doesn't pan out so good.

The one at blame in that story is the guy who had the wolf/dog hybrid on his property, let alone in a place where a lil girl could put her arm through the fence. The animal did what animals will do when they have a wild gene and are penned up. Even domesticated dogs will go crazy when penned up. Stupid people were the cause of that lil girls harm.

It's strange, I've come across wolves 3 times while hunting, one I watched from about 75 yards until it winded me....then that thing was gone in a flash. None of those wolves wanted anything to do with a smelly human. Now, if there was a pack of them and they were on the hunt, I might have cause for concern....but I understand that as being a risk if I go into their domain.

[smokeywolf]

Unfortunately most people who want a wolfdog want one for the wrong reason. They do no study and have no idea what the he** they're doing. They just want a big scary looking dog so they can puff out their chest and get attention and envy from others. No matter how little wolf is in the mix, it's still a wolf and must be treated as such. Also, after 20 years of owning wolfdogs one of the things we've observed is, the last trait to be bred out of the animal is the hunting instinct. Those people who left those children unsupervised around a wolfdog might as well have sent that little girl out into the street to play. They were guilty of child endangerment and they should have been prosecuted.

We raised 2 children while having wolfdogs. We never left either one of them unsupervised. It's amazing how fast a toddler can move and dogs can move even faster. We never had an injury or even a close call.
I've had dogs cats and horses. Trained horses for the National Park Service. Trained my own dogs. Animals don't trust other animals and they can think like them. Why in the world would any human be stupid enough to completely trust an animal who reads you better than you can read them. You don't have to trust an animal to give them love or get love from them.

We've done thousands of hours of study. Here's a little example of some of the things we've learned. Did you know that dogs have what's known as a left biased gaze. Means when they look at your face to determine your mood (and possibly intentions), because the right side of your face shows your expression a split second before the left side, dogs learn to look to that side first; hence, they have a left biased gaze. Just as with most situations in life there are exceptions to the trust rule; some service dogs for instance.

In spite of my love for all dogs, including pitbulls. Like many who have pitbulls, many who have wolfdogs should not own them.

As an aside, we did not initially seek out our first wolfdog. We adopted a shelter dog that was listed as a Samoyed. He turned out to be White Malamute/Arctic Wolf mix.

smokeywolf

[NavyVet1959]

I was reading the wiki article on the Gray Wolves and found the part about how they hunt...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf



A gray wolf hunt can be divided into five stages:

Locating prey: The wolves travel in search of prey through their power of scent, chance encounter, and tracking. Wolves typically locate their prey by scent, though they must usually be directly downwind of it. When a breeze carrying the prey's scent is located, the wolves stand alert, and point their eyes, ears and nose towards their target. In open areas, wolves may precede the hunt with group ceremonies involving standing nose-to-nose and wagging their tails. Once concluded, the wolves head towards their prey.[111] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-mech196-114)
The stalk: The wolves attempt to conceal themselves as they approach.[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-g43-115) As the gap between the wolves and their prey closes, the wolves quicken their pace, wag their tails, and peer intently, getting as close to their quarry as possible without making it flee.[113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-mech199-116)
The encounter: Once the prey detects the wolves, it can either approach the wolves, stand its ground, or flee. Large prey, such as moose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose), elk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk), and muskoxen, usually stand their ground. Should this occur, the wolves hold back, as they require the stimulus of a running animal to proceed with an attack.[114] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-mech200-117) If the targeted animal stands its ground, the wolves either ignore it, or try to intimidate it into running.[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-m119-112)
The rush: If the prey attempts to flee, the wolves immediately pursue it. This is the most critical stage of the hunt, as wolves may never catch up with prey running at top speed.[115] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-mech201-118) If their prey is travelling in a group, the wolves either attempt to break up the herd, or isolate one or two animals from it.[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-g43-115)
The chase: A continuation of the rush, the wolves attempt to catch up with their prey and kill it.[116] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-mech202-119) When chasing small prey, wolves attempt to catch up with their prey as soon as possible, while with larger animals, the chase is prolonged, in order to wear the selected prey out. Wolves usually give up chases after 1–2 km (0.62–1.3 mi), though one wolf was recorded to chase a deer for 21 km (13 mi).[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-m119-112) Both Russian and North American wolves have been observed to drive prey onto crusted ice, precipices, ravines, slopes and steep banks to slow them down.[117] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#cite_note-g45-120)



I see a lot of similarity with how dogs sometimes attack. If you run away from a dog, the prey instinct kicks in and they chase you. If you stand your ground and even try to threaten them, your chance of getting attacked is quite a bit less. From a size standpoint, wolves are not really any larger than a large dog breed. Sure, there have been some record size wolves of up to 175 lbs in North American, but most are below 120 lbs. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be able to outrun a wolf (either speed or distance), so if it came to it, I would just have to intimidate them and convince them that *I* am the alpha. A couple busted skulls with my hickory walking stick (aka "club") should do the trick. Well, assuming I just didn't shoot 'em on sight...

[montana_charlie]

I would just have to intimidate them and convince them that *I* am the alpha. A couple busted skulls with my hickory walking stick (aka "club") should do the trick. Well, assuming I just didn't shoot 'em on sight...
I agree that running is inviting an attack, even with a domestic dog. So, standing your ground is probably the best tactic.

But, when some are looking you in the eye while others are circling behind you, the situation is very likely to need something more than a 'club'.
Your inclination to shoot on sight is likely your best protection ... and try to get 'em all, if you can.

Or, perhaps we need to learn more from Roadie.
Wolves run away from him ...

CM

[A pause for the COZ]

Well my take is. Wolves have hunted and been hunted by man for 1000's of years.
There was a very good reason Wolves were killed on sight. They are a direct competitor with man.
That means if you get enough of us and them in the same area. Some thing bad is gona happen.

That does not mean I want to eradicate wolves. far from it, but I do think they should be limited to specific wild life areas. That way in their world they can be supreme free from human interactions. In ours, Shoot em on sight.

I know sounds extreme. But we are in about the 2nd year of massive deer die offs in MN.
Going to be some hungry Wolves in areas that little jimmy and jannie are waiting for the school bus. Some thing is gona happen.

[jcwit]

So which is worse, a deer being taken down and eaten by wolfs, or a wolf slowly starving to death, and deer overpopulating and dying from disease.

[A pause for the COZ]

The die off of deer here has nothing to do with Wolves. They die because the winters are severe.
Southern areas were they have over population of deer.
Open up no limit hunting and a bounty if needed. Problem solved in one year.

[jcwit]

The die off of deer here has nothing to do with Wolves. They die because the winters are severe.
Southern areas were they have over population of deer.
Open up no limit hunting and a bounty if needed. Problem solved in one year.

Wasn't ment as a reply to your post at all.

Was just something I thought of, altho it might of been because of reading your post. You might have put the seed of thought in my head.

[Omega]

So which is worse, a deer being taken down and eaten by wolfs, or a wolf slowly starving to death, and deer overpopulating and dying from disease.Why, me not getting any deer while the wolves are fat and happy of course. But seriously, why must they introduce them into areas that we know will put them into direct competition with locals? Why do we want them in the first place? And why stop at wolves? Lets get more grizzly bear and mountain lions to complete the balance some are seeking a bit faster.

[jcwit]

Why, me not getting any deer while the wolves are fat and happy of course. But seriously, why must they introduce them into areas that we know will put them into direct competition with locals? Why do we want them in the first place? And why stop at wolves? Lets get more grizzly bear and mountain lions to complete the balance some are seeking a bit faster.

Where did I say anything about introducing anything,

I only posed a question.

[bassnbuck]

So which is worse, a deer being taken down and eaten by wolfs, or a wolf slowly starving to death, and deer overpopulating and dying from disease.
My earlyer post about deer, moose and bad winters may have caused confusion. The biologists believe minnesota moose decline is mostly due to desease and alot of calf loss to wolves. The deer pop. has sufered from bad winters, and a high wolf population. The wolves will not starve, they will just expand their range to where the deer population is better. While we have more than enough wolves the deer and moose will make a very slow recovery-at least I hope they will recover.

[MaryB]

Not a lot of cliffs out on the prairies... I live here I know. SO the running them over a cliff did not happen all that much unless it was a western tribe... Sioux hunted with bow and arrow and lance.



After living in close proximity to these "natural conservationists" for decades, I call BS on the reverent reputation they hold in LIBERAL circles.

With my very own eyes, I have seen horrendous native wastage of caribou in the North, with dozens of complete carcasses rotting in the spring thaw around native houses. I have seen many caribou wounded by inept native shooting, and NOT followed -up.... they were just allowed to stagger off into the bush to die or survive as best they could. The wounded were likely killed by the wolves that traveled with the herds.


So.... a group of indians runs a hundred bison off a cliff? Think about the logistics! "ONE hundred bison" translates to probably a hundred thousand pounds of bison. What is a native village going to do with that much meat? It would be rotting even before they could BEGIN to process it, let alone "use every scrap". We are speaking here of a matter of only a couple of hours if temps are above freezing.

Again from personal experience, even if the temps ARE below freezing, an unskinned bison carcass will begin to "sour" within an hour or two unless that well-insulated hide is removed. How does one prevent that, when the carcasses are piled high on one another at the cliff's bottom?

Answer.... one doesn't. He cuts out the backstraps and tongues, maybe a few of the accessible quarters.... and the vast bulk of the meat is left to rot.

This native reputation on hunting is a hot-button issue with me. The REALITY is disgusting.

As a result of personal experience, I hold very little respect for the ways of native hunters, even to this day.

[roadie]

But we are in about the 2nd year of massive deer die offs in MN.
Going to be some hungry Wolves in areas that little jimmy and jannie are waiting for the school bus. Some thing is gona happen.

Personally, I'd be a lot more worried about coyotes, wolves will move to where they can find game. Coyotes see small dogs and children as an opportunity for a meal. They're also much less afraid of humans.

[MaryB]

I shot a coydog this winter that went after a kid over at the school. It was running with a coyote pack that was just out of town. School playground is right on the edge of farm field so easy prey... Kid identified it by the fur markings and color and the skull went in for rabies(negative) testing. Kid asked for the fur so her dad has it now and is tanning it. She wants it as revenge for being bitten.


Well my take is. Wolves have hunted and been hunted by man for 1000's of years.
There was a very good reason Wolves were killed on sight. They are a direct competitor with man.
That means if you get enough of us and them in the same area. Some thing bad is gona happen.

That does not mean I want to eradicate wolves. far from it, but I do think they should be limited to specific wild life areas. That way in their world they can be supreme free from human interactions. In ours, Shoot em on sight.

I know sounds extreme. But we are in about the 2nd year of massive deer die offs in MN.
Going to be some hungry Wolves in areas that little jimmy and jannie are waiting for the school bus. Some thing is gona happen.

[Plate plinker]

I know of a cliff that may have been used for the bufflo hunt. The teepee rings are a few hundred yards away to this day. It's in central SD on a ranch I've hunted on. Their are many ravines in that area that would do the job well. I too doubt they native could have not wasted tons of meat doing that hunt. My experience with buffalo tells me those guys where really nuts/dumb or had giant nuts. I'm still for no wolves and control of what we have done allowed. They must be kept in check via hunting or trapping. It's not the 1700/1800's anymore. I've seen the damage coyotes can do and can not imagine what a Wolf pack could do in the bread basket of the country. This will eventually come to a head.

[NavyVet1959]

On a side note, I remember reading that the Indians did not have horses until the Spanish brought them over. Or to be more precise, the Spanish *reintroduced* the horse to the North American continent (since horses went extinct here around 10K years ago). So, those drawings that show the Indians on horses killing the buffalo need to evaluated with respect to this. The supposed "balance" that the Indians had with nature was before the Europeans came to North America. After the Spaniards reintroduced the horses to the continent, the balance was thrown off. Just think of it -- how many buffalo do you think they could kill if they were on foot where the buffalo had a good chance of turning the Indian into basically a speed bump as they ran over them? The introduction of the horse was a definitely game changer though. Now, the Indians had a means of transportation that was fast enough to let them get closer too the buffalo while also still allowing them the speed and agility to get out of the way if things went bad for them. As such, a new balance was going to be eventually reached and the odds are, that would result in a decreased buffalo population. I never did buy into the idea of the "noble savage". They expanded to use up their available resources, just like us -- we just did it better.

[perotter]

........ In ours, Shoot em on sight.

.....

I'm sure you know why but to those who are in areas where wolves now just invading, if all possible gut shoot them. You want them to run a few miles before they die.

[bassnbuck]

http://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/mnwolfrangemap.jpgThis is the wolf centers guess at wolf range. Living here, hunting and trapping since 1971 I can tell you they were well into the blue range before `71. I bowhunted Camp Ripely-[near Little Falls] last fall, they now claim 3 resident packs. Deer sign there was very sparse but the wolf scat was still full of deer hair. I still believe counting wolves in the forest zone is like counting crappie minnows in a bucket- just a guess.

[M-Tecs]

It's truly sad what has happened to the Camp Ripely deer population since the Wolves have been reintroduced. Camp Ripely in the early 90's was a bow hunters paradise.

[montana_charlie]

So, those drawings that show the Indians on horses killing the buffalo need to evaluated with respect to this.

Just think of it -- how many buffalo do you think they could kill if they were on foot where the buffalo had a good chance of turning the Indian into basically a speed bump as they ran over them? The introduction of the horse was a definitely game changer though.
I live quite near the Ulm Pishkun, so 'buffalo jump' is a subject I have read about, a little. Reading your two comments above, I knew they 'didn't compute', so I Googled for some informational that is available to all.

How did they do it without horses ... ?

In one of his journals, Meriwether Lewis describes how a buffalo jump was practiced during the Lewis and Clark Expedition:

"one of the most active and fleet young men is selected and disguised in a robe of buffalo skin... he places himself at a distance between a herd of buffalo and a precipice proper for the purpose; the other Indians now surround the herd on the back and flanks and at a signal agreed on all show themselves at the same time moving forward towards the buffalo; the disguised Indian or decoy has taken care to place himself sufficiently near the buffalo to be noticed by them when they take to flight and running before them they follow him in full speed to the precipice; the Indian (decoy) in the mean time has taken care to secure himself in some cranny in the cliff... the part of the decoy I am informed is extremely dangerous."


How instrumental was the horse in 'jumping' buffalo ... ?

This type of hunting was a communal event which occurred as early as 12,000 years ago and lasted until at least 1500 CE, around the time of the introduction of horses.

Both of those exerpts came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_jump

[NavyVet1959]

I've had some cattle be pretty aggressive towards me when we were catching their calves in order to give them medicine. And this is with a somewhat domesticated animal. Even if they don't intend to hurt you, having an animal that might be 1500-2000 lbs wanting to do something other than what you want (or expect) it to do is a recipe for someone getting injured (and it is likely not going to be the cattle). An older guy I knew had a few ribs broken by his bull when he had a 5g bucket of feed and was headed out to the trough to feed the bull. The bull kept trying to get his head in the bucket until it knocked the guy down (or he tripped) and then with the feed cubes spilled all over the top of the guy, the bull was eating it off his chest while straddled over the top of him. If he hadn't broken the ribs, it would have been pretty funny. If you have something that weighs that much AND is angry or defensive, it's an entirely different story. Combine that with an animal that can be even heavier, is not domesticated and as such is wilder, and you have a situation where Darwin is just sitting there waiting for you. People who raise buffalo commercially have stronger fences. The fences that we used to use for cattle, well, a buffalo would just walk through and never notice. I was in Yellowstone about 10 winters ago on a snowmobile tour and was surprised how close and clueless some of the people got to the buffalo that were crossing the road. I have no doubt, considering how close they were, that if the buffalo had wanted, they could have put those idiots in orbit before they could have doubled back and got even 1/4 of the way back to their snowmobile (which was turned off).

The Indian who chose to sneak into the buffalo herd and entice them to run towards the cliff had to be young. Once you get older, you realize how stupid doing such a thing might be. When you're young, you *know* that you are invulnerable.

[A pause for the COZ]

There have been a couple of reports of Wolves hunting mountain bikers. No incidences yet.
But will be as soon as the Wolves figure out they taste good.

[Multigunner]

There have been a couple of reports of Wolves hunting mountain bikers. No incidences yet.
But will be as soon as the Wolves figure out they taste good.
Canines of all types are driven to chase bicycles unless they get a stern lesson early on.
I figure its mainly the sound of the spokes whirling in air setting up some nagging sound humans can't hear that drives some dogs batty.

Then again the hunting instinct kicks in whenever something moves fast across their line of sight, but I've seen an old dog come out of a deep slumber to chase a bicycle he could not have seen before the sound woke him up.
Disc wheels without spokes might cut down on dogs or other animals chasing bikers, though unlikely to be a overall cure.

I have an old book with a section on experiments by the U S Army in using bicycle mounted infantry.
They had believed that setting bicycles upside down with wheels spinning in the air would spook calvary horses, but this proved not to work, at least on trained calvary mounts ridden by experianced troopers.

[10x]

There have been a couple of reports of Wolves hunting mountain bikers. No incidences yet.
But will be as soon as the Wolves figure out they taste good.

It is instinct for any predator to chase down anything they believe is running away from them. That is why dogs chase cars - to feed that instinct.
For a bear or a wolf any thing that is running is in a fear /flight response and is probably food.
Come to think of it that is a really good reason to not jog.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ifkzAdplwI

[Wooly]

Reintroduce them into Central Park. I'm sure they were there at some point. We don't want them out here.

[AKtinman]

Looks like wolves chase snowmobiles, too ;)

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/28265499/lone-wolf-chasing-snowmobiles-at-voyageurs-national-park

[smokeywolf]

Put a pack of 8 or 10 on the White House grounds and don't forget to provide doggy doors.

[scb]

Looks like wolves chase snowmobiles, too ;)

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/28265499/lone-wolf-chasing-snowmobiles-at-voyageurs-national-park

I'd have said NO until I saw this. Now I'd take a pack of them to get rid on the drunken, trespassing, alpha hotels that infest our area from December to May.

[MtGun44]

Still say they need to shot on sight, every single stinking one of them.

[NavyVet1959]

Still say they need to shot on sight, every single stinking one of them.

Are you talking about snowmobilers, politicians, or gray wolves?

[MtGun44]

Got no beef with snowmobilers, never been around them, no comment on
politicians - although I have a few that are friends and are good honest folks,
but was pointing towards the wolves.