Wolf news
11-01-2005, 03:04 PM
#21
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack
to actually talk about the negatives if the numbers we are getting were anything remotely alarming.
The last numbers I saw (which was last year) was so rediculously low that the thought almost completely left my mind.
There was several studies done on this exact issue in Minnesota. The researchers found that the livestock losses were completely negligible (<1% IIRC), and were generally not just the products ofpredation but here were actually other factors involved like improper carcass disposal by ranchers, among other things.
Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating
I'm only trying to lendsome reason to what is almost a purely emotional debate.
to actually talk about the negatives if the numbers we are getting were anything remotely alarming.
The last numbers I saw (which was last year) was so rediculously low that the thought almost completely left my mind.
There was several studies done on this exact issue in Minnesota. The researchers found that the livestock losses were completely negligible (<1% IIRC), and were generally not just the products ofpredation but here were actually other factors involved like improper carcass disposal by ranchers, among other things.
Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating
I'm only trying to lendsome reason to what is almost a purely emotional debate.
How does a study done in minnesota have anything to do with Idaho? I think you would agree that the ecosystems are quite different. Am I mistaken or did Minnesota recently stock elk, and mountains?I think that it would be commonly accepted that the method of raising livestock in minnesota differs greatlyfrom those in mountainous regions. So I don't see the corelation.
I trust the word of hunters more than "scientist". I'm sorry but in my experience the former are more honest. Before you call me an imbecile let me inform you that I have a bachelor's degree in Animal Science, before going to graduate school in business. I seen enough to know that in science much like Accounting you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to. You and I both know that is true.Fish and game scientists always want to discount the information that Hunters can provide.I suppose they have an agenda and if the data doesn't suit them it is considered false.
For years in my home state of missouri the department of conservation discounted reports of mountain lions. They even went as far as to call videos,of cats, fakes. Now they are doing the same with Bear. I can assure you that we have both Lions, and bears in missouribecause I've seen them first hand. Now, go ask a biologist and there is no telling what kind of answer you will get.
I'm not saying that the wolves should be wiped out, nor that the wolves should beprotected. Somewhere, sometime we have to find a common ground.
11-01-2005, 03:53 PM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: jones123
But they're not using it in many cases. Ranchers have had to require a lot of proof and have had to wait, only to have the officer merely re-locate the wolf - if he finds it. And to wait until the kill - are any wolves not going to eat animals?
Many Ranchers are taking things into their own hands now, after several years of many of them giving the officers a chance.
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack
Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating on livestock.
Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating on livestock.
Many Ranchers are taking things into their own hands now, after several years of many of them giving the officers a chance.
11-01-2005, 04:07 PM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: ShatoDavis
Tell the rancher that losses livestock that his loss is negligible and you will see just how emotional this can become.
How does a study done in minnesota have anything to do with Idaho? I think you would agree that the ecosystems are quite different. Am I mistaken or did Minnesota recently stock elk, and mountains?I think that it would be commonly accepted that the method of raising livestock in minnesota differs greatlyfrom those in mountainous regions. So I don't see the corelation.
I trust the word of hunters more than "scientist". I'm sorry but in my experience the former are more honest. Before you call me an imbecile let me inform you that I have a bachelor's degree in Animal Science, before going to graduate school in business. I seen enough to know that in science much like Accounting you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to. You and I both know that is true.Fish and game scientists always want to discount the information that Hunters can provide.I suppose they have an agenda and if the data doesn't suit them it is considered false.
For years in my home state of missouri the department of conservation discounted reports of mountain lions. They even went as far as to call videos,of cats, fakes. Now they are doing the same with Bear. I can assure you that we have both Lions, and bears in missouribecause I've seen them first hand. Now, go ask a biologist and there is no telling what kind of answer you will get.
I'm not saying that the wolves should be wiped out, nor that the wolves should beprotected. Somewhere, sometime we have to find a common ground.
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack
to actually talk about the negatives if the numbers we are getting were anything remotely alarming.
The last numbers I saw (which was last year) was so rediculously low that the thought almost completely left my mind.
There was several studies done on this exact issue in Minnesota. The researchers found that the livestock losses were completely negligible (<1% IIRC), and were generally not just the products ofpredation but here were actually other factors involved like improper carcass disposal by ranchers, among other things.
Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating
I'm only trying to lendsome reason to what is almost a purely emotional debate.
to actually talk about the negatives if the numbers we are getting were anything remotely alarming.
The last numbers I saw (which was last year) was so rediculously low that the thought almost completely left my mind.
There was several studies done on this exact issue in Minnesota. The researchers found that the livestock losses were completely negligible (<1% IIRC), and were generally not just the products ofpredation but here were actually other factors involved like improper carcass disposal by ranchers, among other things.
Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating
I'm only trying to lendsome reason to what is almost a purely emotional debate.
How does a study done in minnesota have anything to do with Idaho? I think you would agree that the ecosystems are quite different. Am I mistaken or did Minnesota recently stock elk, and mountains?I think that it would be commonly accepted that the method of raising livestock in minnesota differs greatlyfrom those in mountainous regions. So I don't see the corelation.
I trust the word of hunters more than "scientist". I'm sorry but in my experience the former are more honest. Before you call me an imbecile let me inform you that I have a bachelor's degree in Animal Science, before going to graduate school in business. I seen enough to know that in science much like Accounting you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to. You and I both know that is true.Fish and game scientists always want to discount the information that Hunters can provide.I suppose they have an agenda and if the data doesn't suit them it is considered false.
For years in my home state of missouri the department of conservation discounted reports of mountain lions. They even went as far as to call videos,of cats, fakes. Now they are doing the same with Bear. I can assure you that we have both Lions, and bears in missouribecause I've seen them first hand. Now, go ask a biologist and there is no telling what kind of answer you will get.
I'm not saying that the wolves should be wiped out, nor that the wolves should beprotected. Somewhere, sometime we have to find a common ground.
It's easy for you to disregard the findings of the study because it doesn't suit your purpose. That's pretty typical and understandable.
A bachelors in animal scienceunfortunately does notmake you a researcher. Your logic skills must be somewhat lacking if you truely believe that every researcher has an agenda and is out to screw the landowners/ranchers. Your comments lead me to believe that you have no experience in peer-reviewed research and really don't know what goes on during the process of publishing a scientificarticle. If this is true then I can see why you would feel that way. It's a shame really because it's somewhat the heart of the problem between scientists and the rest of the public. If your just going to stick your head in the sand and say "I believe what I believe and nothing (certainly not science) can change my mind" then your doomed to ignorance and anger at everything around you that you do not understand.
You can not believe science that is your choice. But it's in your best interests to at least read and keep up on the science behind issues like this, because the science is what shapes public policy and public policy is what effects the landowners/ranchers.
11-02-2005, 09:50 AM
#24
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,429
RE: Wolf news
It's easy for you to disregard the findings of the study because it doesn't suit your purpose. That's pretty typical and understandable.
[/quote]
that isexactly my point sir. If you think that thenon scientists are the only ones who disregard crucial Information then you sir are the ignorant.
Never claimed to be. As a matter of fact I simply stated that to try and avoid the name calling. But it was unsuccessful.
Funny how you want an itelligent coversation at one point then regress to name calling later.
I never said that either. I simply said that there are those who have an agenda. I think you know I'm correct. And if you think that some researchers don't disregard information that contradicts there agenda, then you are the one with his head in the sand.
The key term is Peer. I seen some "research" done for the Sierra club,Peta, Humane society, etc. They where peer reviewed and they where total garbage.
That is very true. A degree doesn't make you an expert. Its human nature to think that your stand on issue is right and others that disagree are totally wrong. As a scientist you should know that there are no absolutes. Your arrogance is palpable!
My personal feelings on the wolf issue is that theyhave just as much right to be here as us. There are too many interests involved to say that the wolf should be allowed to go unmanaged. There has to be a middle ground where the wolves can be controlled to the point where there is a sustainable population with as little detrimentas possible to wildlife, livestock, and humans.
[/quote]
that isexactly my point sir. If you think that thenon scientists are the only ones who disregard crucial Information then you sir are the ignorant.
A bachelors in animal scienceunfortunately does notmake you a researcher
If your just going to stick your head in the sand and say "I believe what I believe and nothing (certainly not science) can change my mind" then your doomed to ignorance and anger at everything around you that you do not understand
Your logic skills must be somewhat lacking if you truely believe that every researcher has an agenda and is out to screw the landowners/ranchers.
Your comments lead me to believe that you have no experience in peer-reviewed research and really don't know what goes on during the process of publishing a scientificarticle.
it's in your best interests to at least read and keep up on the science behind issues like this, because the science is what shapes public policy and public policy is what effects the landowners/ranchers.
My personal feelings on the wolf issue is that theyhave just as much right to be here as us. There are too many interests involved to say that the wolf should be allowed to go unmanaged. There has to be a middle ground where the wolves can be controlled to the point where there is a sustainable population with as little detrimentas possible to wildlife, livestock, and humans.
11-02-2005, 09:55 AM
#25
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 590
RE: Wolf news
BrutalAttack, thanks man! You're speaking my language. I've been making many of your same points for a while now. (I made the one on the degradation of Idaho's elk habitat long ago. I studied under James Peak at the U. of Idaho, and back in the '70s he wrote his first paper predicting a coming decline in ID elk numbers. Wolves weren't even a gleam in a tree hugger's eye back then.) It's like throwing rocks in a pond trying to splash out all the water, it just makes no impact at all.
I live in the Bitterroot valley where we have record elk numbers and record calf:cow ratios. We also have wolves running around all over the place. You walk in to the local cafes, and the talk is all about how the wolves are wiping the elk out here. There's just a total disconnect between reality and people's perception. I recently had a set-to with a family friend who, in his own words, "haven't picked up my bow all season, haven't even bothered to go out". Yet this guy can tell me, who is out in the woods almost literally all the time, that me and the Fish and Game don't know anything. The elk are on the path to extinction.
I recently saw some of these wolves that everybody knows just kills stuff and leaves it lie. These wolves were in the middle of an elk haven, and I interrupted them in mid-attack on a cow elk. (True story - one I'll tell in full someday.) Anyhow, I got a really good look at these ravenous killers. Their body frames were comparable to German Shepherds, but they were carrying about 10-20 lbs. less body weight than a domestic dog would be packing. They looked lean as hell, basically healthy but VERY lean. Now, if these things run around killing things and leaving them lie, then we have a new line of bull for the antiwolf slobber-slinging brigade. WOLVES ARE STUPID! They ought to at least eat enough of all their abundant kills to not look like anorexic runway models.
I'll say again, I think the key is habitat. Predators are seconday. Give'em good habitat and they will thrive. We're coming off the fires of 2000 here, and the elk are fat, happy, and abundant.
I live in the Bitterroot valley where we have record elk numbers and record calf:cow ratios. We also have wolves running around all over the place. You walk in to the local cafes, and the talk is all about how the wolves are wiping the elk out here. There's just a total disconnect between reality and people's perception. I recently had a set-to with a family friend who, in his own words, "haven't picked up my bow all season, haven't even bothered to go out". Yet this guy can tell me, who is out in the woods almost literally all the time, that me and the Fish and Game don't know anything. The elk are on the path to extinction.
I recently saw some of these wolves that everybody knows just kills stuff and leaves it lie. These wolves were in the middle of an elk haven, and I interrupted them in mid-attack on a cow elk. (True story - one I'll tell in full someday.) Anyhow, I got a really good look at these ravenous killers. Their body frames were comparable to German Shepherds, but they were carrying about 10-20 lbs. less body weight than a domestic dog would be packing. They looked lean as hell, basically healthy but VERY lean. Now, if these things run around killing things and leaving them lie, then we have a new line of bull for the antiwolf slobber-slinging brigade. WOLVES ARE STUPID! They ought to at least eat enough of all their abundant kills to not look like anorexic runway models.
I'll say again, I think the key is habitat. Predators are seconday. Give'em good habitat and they will thrive. We're coming off the fires of 2000 here, and the elk are fat, happy, and abundant.
11-02-2005, 12:00 PM
#26
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Midvale, Id USA
Posts: 406
RE: Wolf news
As this debate continues,I honestly can see both sides of the argument. I am not pro-wolf by any means, but I am also not anti-wolf. I've lived in Idaho most of my life. I DID NOT support the wolf re-introduction because I felt it was a poor plan promoted by atreehugger agenda. I saw my first wolf5 years ago following a sheep herd. Since then I have seen 5 more and heard them several times.I listen to hunters and ranchers reports about the "kill happy" wolf packs, but haven't witnessed it first hand. I've talked to a sheepherder who spent many a sleepless night defending his herd against a nearby wolf pack. I know that much of the predation control on domestic animal attackshas been very reactive and absolutely lacking in proactivity. [/align][/align]Thearticle posted on this thread stated that there are over 800 wolves in Montana & Idaho, with 700 in Idaho alone.Mostconcentrated inthe Yellowstone and Central Idaho area. Do you know what avast area that is?? I've talked to hunters thatreport wolf sightings fromthe Salmon, Challis & Mackay area, thru Sun Valley,around Atlanta, up thru McCall & Council, up to Riggins, and around Elk City. This is a VAST area. I also believe the 700 count is very low. More than likely over 1000 to 1500or more.[/align][/align]You also have to think about thenumbers generated each year from a litter.Ifout of 700Idaho wolves 1/4 are breeding females, that's 125 females.Each female has 4 pups, that'san additional 500 new wolves. Do the math and you see how this population will escalate exponentially. [/align][/align]An Idaho Fish and Game report last year stated that since the re-introduction of the wolves the elk herds in Idaho have declined by 30%. I'm sure there are many other environmental issues that caused this reduction, but with the escalating wolf population yousimply cannot rule out this coincidence.[/align][/align]We here in Idaho are at a point of "too little to late". There is absolutely no reason these wolves should be a protected species here, and I am glad that State control is at hand. Unfortunately it is coming in a bit late, and once again reactive. It seems it has forced many ethical hunters to take the illegal approach of shoot, shovel, and shut up to try to curb the wolf population.[/align][/align]Money always seems to be an issue as well. Here is an idea... Start offering wolf tags! What better way to generate needed money than toopen up controlled hunt wolf tags.I read the post from our Canadian brothers about how they don't see the problem. Well, that's because you get to hunt wolves under your game management plans. We Idaho hunters can't touch a wolf without the serious financial repercussions it will create. You make a wolf tag, and you will generate more money in one season than all the imposed fines already given out for illegal wolf killings combined.[/align][/align]Just my opinion, and like buttholes, everyone's got one....[/align]
11-02-2005, 05:35 PM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: Dirt2
BrutalAttack, thanks man! You're speaking my language. I've been making many of your same points for a while now. (I made the one on the degradation of Idaho's elk habitat long ago. I studied under James Peak at the U. of Idaho, and back in the '70s he wrote his first paper predicting a coming decline in ID elk numbers. Wolves weren't even a gleam in a tree hugger's eye back then.) It's like throwing rocks in a pond trying to splash out all the water, it just makes no impact at all.
I live in the Bitterroot valley where we have record elk numbers and record calf:cow ratios. We also have wolves running around all over the place. You walk in to the local cafes, and the talk is all about how the wolves are wiping the elk out here. There's just a total disconnect between reality and people's perception. I recently had a set-to with a family friend who, in his own words, "haven't picked up my bow all season, haven't even bothered to go out". Yet this guy can tell me, who is out in the woods almost literally all the time, that me and the Fish and Game don't know anything. The elk are on the path to extinction.
I recently saw some of these wolves that everybody knows just kills stuff and leaves it lie. These wolves were in the middle of an elk haven, and I interrupted them in mid-attack on a cow elk. (True story - one I'll tell in full someday.) Anyhow, I got a really good look at these ravenous killers. Their body frames were comparable to German Shepherds, but they were carrying about 10-20 lbs. less body weight than a domestic dog would be packing. They looked lean as hell, basically healthy but VERY lean. Now, if these things run around killing things and leaving them lie, then we have a new line of bull for the antiwolf slobber-slinging brigade. WOLVES ARE STUPID! They ought to at least eat enough of all their abundant kills to not look like anorexic runway models.
I'll say again, I think the key is habitat. Predators are seconday. Give'em good habitat and they will thrive. We're coming off the fires of 2000 here, and the elk are fat, happy, and abundant.
BrutalAttack, thanks man! You're speaking my language. I've been making many of your same points for a while now. (I made the one on the degradation of Idaho's elk habitat long ago. I studied under James Peak at the U. of Idaho, and back in the '70s he wrote his first paper predicting a coming decline in ID elk numbers. Wolves weren't even a gleam in a tree hugger's eye back then.) It's like throwing rocks in a pond trying to splash out all the water, it just makes no impact at all.
I live in the Bitterroot valley where we have record elk numbers and record calf:cow ratios. We also have wolves running around all over the place. You walk in to the local cafes, and the talk is all about how the wolves are wiping the elk out here. There's just a total disconnect between reality and people's perception. I recently had a set-to with a family friend who, in his own words, "haven't picked up my bow all season, haven't even bothered to go out". Yet this guy can tell me, who is out in the woods almost literally all the time, that me and the Fish and Game don't know anything. The elk are on the path to extinction.
I recently saw some of these wolves that everybody knows just kills stuff and leaves it lie. These wolves were in the middle of an elk haven, and I interrupted them in mid-attack on a cow elk. (True story - one I'll tell in full someday.) Anyhow, I got a really good look at these ravenous killers. Their body frames were comparable to German Shepherds, but they were carrying about 10-20 lbs. less body weight than a domestic dog would be packing. They looked lean as hell, basically healthy but VERY lean. Now, if these things run around killing things and leaving them lie, then we have a new line of bull for the antiwolf slobber-slinging brigade. WOLVES ARE STUPID! They ought to at least eat enough of all their abundant kills to not look like anorexic runway models.
I'll say again, I think the key is habitat. Predators are seconday. Give'em good habitat and they will thrive. We're coming off the fires of 2000 here, and the elk are fat, happy, and abundant.
Jim Peek is a good friend of mine and I also studied under him. He was way ahead of his time in terms of Idaho elk. I doubt there is anyone in the country that knows as much or has contributed as much to ungulate research, elk in particular.
11-02-2005, 05:47 PM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,572
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: ShatoDavis
The key term is Peer. I seen some "research" done for the Sierra club,Peta, Humane society, etc. They where peer reviewed and they where total garbage.
The key term is Peer. I seen some "research" done for the Sierra club,Peta, Humane society, etc. They where peer reviewed and they where total garbage.
ORIGINAL: ShatoDavis
That is very true. A degree doesn't make you an expert. Its human nature to think that your stand on issue is right and others that disagree are totally wrong. As a scientist you should know that there are no absolutes. Your arrogance is palpable!
That is very true. A degree doesn't make you an expert. Its human nature to think that your stand on issue is right and others that disagree are totally wrong. As a scientist you should know that there are no absolutes. Your arrogance is palpable!
Of course I'm going to debate hard and attempt to sway people to what I feel is true, such is the purpose of debate in case you've forgotten.
ORIGINAL: ShatoDavis
My personal feelings on the wolf issue is that theyhave just as much right to be here as us. There are too many interests involved to say that the wolf should be allowed to go unmanaged. There has to be a middle ground where the wolves can be controlled to the point where there is a sustainable population with as little detrimentas possible to wildlife, livestock, and humans.
My personal feelings on the wolf issue is that theyhave just as much right to be here as us. There are too many interests involved to say that the wolf should be allowed to go unmanaged. There has to be a middle ground where the wolves can be controlled to the point where there is a sustainable population with as little detrimentas possible to wildlife, livestock, and humans.
There is a middle ground and as with almost every scientific foray, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The prowolfers don't have it, and the antiwolfers don't have it. The only people who are even moderately inclined to be objective is scientists.
I have to say though that the quality of posts on this topic has gone up 100% since that last time this can of worms was opened.
11-02-2005, 07:05 PM
#29
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anaconda
Posts: 108
RE: Wolf news
Wolves are definently gonna be a big problem for the elk populations. Not only are they some of the most wasteful and cruel predetors the absence of the wolves for so long has had the elk and other game animals forget how to protect themselves and survive with wolves. They have become an unhealthy and unethical change to the game populations in most of the areas of reintroduction. Ive got a poll on what people think the effect of the reintroduction will do to the Northern Yellowstone elk herds on my site at www.freewebs.com/smokechaser if anyone wants to vote on it.
11-02-2005, 07:33 PM
#30
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Montana
Posts: 586
RE: Wolf news
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack
As far as I know, ranchers have always been allowed to kill any wolf they see attacking thier livestock. Wolves are killed up here on a pretty regular basis and they are NOT relocated. In fact I've never heard of a wolf that attacked livestock being relocated. Could you please let me know your source for that?
As far as I know, ranchers have always been allowed to kill any wolf they see attacking thier livestock. Wolves are killed up here on a pretty regular basis and they are NOT relocated. In fact I've never heard of a wolf that attacked livestock being relocated. Could you please let me know your source for that?
The relocation was the story going through thecommunity last season.The ranchers are saying "We've given thisa chance for years.We're trying to act by the book. Butthe officialsare not acting fast or aggressively enough, so it's time we take care of the problem ourselves"
I'm not the one in the know, just an interested hunter, but I don't believe any ranchers are allowed to shoot wolves. I haven't heard of any telling me that, and it doesn't sound like something the feds would allow. I mean, I would like it if they did, but it's way out of character for the feds totrust lowly citizens with that decision. How would a rancher prove his stock was being preyed upon? That he didn't have somebody else do the shooting? That it was on his ranch? What is the definition of a ranch or rancher?
My other source is local news. Now and then I hear about feds or state killing wolves, but I do not believe they're allowing ranchers to kill.