RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

First I think these studies that these folks are coming up with are abserd.
Kinda like the Tobacco issue.We all know it's bad, people are getting cancer but you have others who say it just isn't so.
No different here. I read the local paper and how so and so's Sheep or Cattle were attacked and this happens on a regular basis and then you get some guy from New Jersey saying that the Fed's will reimburse you for the loss. 10 of your sheep have been killed and to be fully reimbursed on all your sheep you must PROVE that ALL 10 were attacked(if you can find the missing) and killed by a wolf when you were out at 2:00am chasing them off..
The main problem here is having NON-Locals have a say in anything that happens here. The Majority Verses the Minority when it has little or no effect on the Majority.
That being said. If you don't live here butt out! This would be step 1. Next it should be turned over to the states to manage this species which is now in fully thriving.
If you really want know whats going on,the January 2004 issue of American Hunter has an eye opening view from a famous local Chuck Adams(Mr.Grandslam) who lives 20 miles up the road from me.
I urge all of you who want to comment on this issue to read this. as SOME of the posts here are really showing your ignorance by not having a clue as to what is REALLY going on.
If you can't find a copy email me and I will fax you 1

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

I agree that states should handle thier own wolves just like they handle thier own deer, elk and everything else. I think we all agree (At least 99% of us) that wolves should no longer be protected and managed by the FED's. Absolutely some guy in New York should have ZERO say about the wolves in Montana. But the wolves are here like it or not. The point is how do we handle them? Do you feel your state would take control of the problem wolves if it was in thier hands? How do you think the best way to handle them is? You know, the wolves killing livestock.

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

In what way? Is it because you don't understand? They are somewhat heavy with technobabble. If your having trouble I can try to help explain what they did.

[/quote]

The funny thing is...I live right over the Nez trail from you Bob. :)
I hear wolves howling from my porch. Last time I was outside I didn't see any rampaging wolves conducting wholesale slaughter on anything that moved.

I agree totally.

Can you be more specific? Should we be ignoring the scientific community and listening only to the ranchers? They are the only ones who matter or have a say in what happens on our Federal land?

People have different values on wolves and someone else's view on wolves is just as valid as a ranchers, loggers or ecofreak or whatever. You have to understand that.

If all you can do is scream and moan about livestock this and ranching that your going to loose credibility with EVERYONE except ranchers. What would you like to see done about the livestock predation? I see alot of bitching and nothing constructive coming from that ranching community other than "kill em all".

You obviously lack the ability to look at the issue objectively. You can't put yourself in anyone else's shoes but your own little communities' and that is hindering your ability to understand the issues at hand.

Thats one thing science is good for. The job of the scientific communities job is to look at an issue from all angles and favoring none above the other. There are exceptions but by and large we are good about doing this.

And no one is showing more ignorance than you so far. It's generally not a good idea to quote or get information from a magazine such as American Hunter. Don't get me wrong I'm a member and I get the magazine but come on, they obviously have a stake in swaying people's thinking.

The thing that bothers me is that some people are unable or unwilling to understand that ranchers, farmers and rural people like myself were not the only ones who care or have a stake in widlife issues. It wasn't until I was almost graduated from college that i finally realized that people have varying views/values on wildlife and ALL wildlife issues are complex and multi-sided with no easy answers.

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

To me the problem is "outsider" influence backed by "biased" money elbowing into smaller communities, demanding/coehercing compliance to an issue some SCIENTIST!!! created.

The issue of the wolf, is and will always be a sore one. Though you may think and read that the problem of the wolf here is a small one, and true the land is Nationally owned property, bordering it is individuals who by luck (some call it ) or the grace of God (I call it) are fortunate enough to have the land to work and be productive sans any outside influence. The productivity was working well, the wolf did exist just not by the numbers the SCIENTISTS!!! wanted.

When you visit the park do you always see the game you want to see? The wolf is a social animal/predator and avoids human contact when it can. Because someone doesn't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Do you always "Bag an Elk" when hunting (always ) If you do you are very good. I've hunted most of my life and not every year do I bring home the meat, some years they are just not there.

The wolf in somebodys opinion is an endangered species because they couldn't see them. Well I suppose that's a scientific way of making a point that is being force fed to us. Do you see cougars/pumas/mt. lions every where you look? I'm sorry they must be endangered let's list them protect them and reintroduce them until they are seen everytime we go out. The wolf exists, is here to stay and I can't do a thing about controlling it because not everyone has seen it yet.

I believe the law is the law, I follow the law even though the law at some times is flawed. That in itself is a real challenge.

Problem 1. Small community
2. Outside bias
3. Creating a foreseen problem without an end game.
(we didn't want to jump into the game until we knew we could jump out if things got out of hand)
4. Having a viable end game shoved back in our faces by the bias that created the problem.
5. Another flawed law to follow

EDIT POINT: I'm sorry I'm being an air bag here, I have an opinion, If I express that opinion and someone doesn't like it I am labeled intolerant and a biased backwoods hick yamma yamma yadda yadda. Pardon me! I happen to be a vocal part of a silenced community. Silenced by intolerance and bias.

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

Are these studies taken in every drainage in the West... don't think so.
I here Wolves and see scat in the woods and theres not a problem in my front yard YET!
Just because Knapweed isn't growing in my front yard doesn't mean it's not a problem in the state. Shall I conduct some research in my front yard to prove to you that no such problems exist's.......Of course not. Just as I am not going to listen to some study tell me one thing when I see another.
So if this is ignorance I guess thats me.
As far as the article published in American Hunter, this was WRITTEN by a local and not the NRA. Don't you think a Government Funded study want's to sway you just as you are saying the NRA is.
Do the Feds really want to come out and say they might have made a made a mistake?
And we are winning the war on drugs...Is another fun one.;)
I can stand on a soapbox and tell you the fire is hot all day,But some insist on touching just to make sure.

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

You guys are using logical fallacies...

Did I say livestock predation doesn't occur?

oh hey, since you guys like science so much I thought I would post a few more studies done on livestock depredations.

First one is: Managing Wolf Conflict with Livestock in the Northwestern United States, from Carnivore Damage Prevention News 3:2-5.




Since 1987 total confirmed minimum livestock losses in NW Montana totaled 82 cattle, 68 sheep, 7 dogs, and 2 llamas. Depredations averaged 6 cattle, 5 sheep, and less than one dog annually. Agency control killed about 3 wolves a year…. Minimum confirmed livestock losses have annually averaged about 4 cattle, 28 sheep, and 4 dogs in the Yellowstone area and 10 cattle, 30 sheep, and 2 dogs in central Idaho.

$150,000 in compensation has been provided to producers in MT, ID, WY since ’87.

In a recent two year study, "Calf survival was 95% and 98%. Wolves killed calves that were the lowest weight, less guarded by people, nearest to an active wolf den, and in the heaviest forest cover, suggesting that wolves tested and hunted cattle like wild prey and attacked the most vulnerable animals."

p.3

In general, research indicated that wolves often lived near livestock (primarily cattle) and other domestic animals but conflicts were uncommon considering the potential for depredation.

exposed carrion can attract wolves to areas with livestock and increase the encounter rate between wolves and livestock.

Wolf depredations on livestock are an insignificant impact to the livestock industry in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming and the vast majority of ranches never have problems, but a few individual small livestock producers can be greatly impacted.

The (Fish and Wildlife) Service has permitted livestock producers to shoot wolves actually seen attacking livestock, and in a few chronic cases… to shoot wolves on sight.




This one is from Minnesota: Trends and Management of Wolf-Livestock Conflicts in Minnesota. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 181

Verified complaints (of livestock depredation by wolves) averaged 30 per year, and the number of farms where depredations were verified averaged 21 (from 1975-1986)…. About 0.33% of the farms within the range of the wolf in Minnesota were affected annually, assuming a total of 7,200 farms.

The explanation proposed was that vulnerability of whit-tailed deer fawns in summer was directly related to previous winter severity, and wolf depredations on domestic animals were inversely related to fawn vulnerability. That is, when fawns were difficult to capture, wolves turned to domestic prey…. Generally, the winters of lowest WSI (winter severity index) values (i.e., mild) were followed by summers of highest verified complaints and vice-versa.

Depredations generally occurred in remote parts of farms, but sites included distant pastures to within a few meters of farm buildings. Losses near buildings were usually in early spring when wolves were visiting livestock carrion that had been disposed of outside the farmyard during winter…. Aside from totally wooded pastures, areas with a mosaic of fields and forests seemed to present the greatest opportunity for depredations. Wolves were reluctant to cross large open spaces.

Leaving livestock carcasses near farmyards or in pastures during winter and spring centered wolf activity there at calving time. Allowing calving on pastureland also drew wolves to easy prey. And allowing livestock access to large wooded areas prevented them from being easily monitored.

In British Columbia, wolf control is denied and improved husbandry recommended if faulty husbandry practices are directly responsible for wolf conflicts (Tompa 1983a, 1983b).

we observed that payment for losses did not encourage operators to correct management practices or try nonlethal methods. We consider the Minnesota compensation program successful and well worth its cost, but suggest that payment be reduced or withheld when correctable husbandry practices seem responsible for depredations.

A small fraction of the farms in wolf range were affected annually, and the effect on livestock production as a whole continued to be negligible



Here is another one from Minnesota. By a non governmental agency since we all see your paranoid.

Assessing Factors that May Predispose Minnesota Farms to Wolf Depredations on Cattle. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:623-629.



the total proportion of farms in wolf range that suffer verified wolf depredations is only about 1% per year

All but 3 of the 11 farm characteristics and management practices we assessed were similar for chronic and matching (non-depredated) farms, with one factor being equivocal (Tables 1-4). The 3 factors that differed were size of farm, number of livestock, and distance of livestock from human dwelling, and these factors were correlated (r2=0.09-0.37, P=0.001-0.05). The chronic farms were larger (491 vs. 292+/- 71 ha), had more cattle (158 vs. 82+/- 18), and had herds farther (mean maximum distance =2.8 km vs. 1.8+/- 0.5 km) from human dwellings (Table 1).

The equivocal factor was method of carcass disposal. Contrary to expectations, more farms with chronic losses reported properly disposing of carcasses than did matching farms not suffering cattle depredations (Table 5). However, WS personnel indicated that they had observed evidence of at least an intermittent carcass dump on all except 2 of the 41 farms with chronic losses.

False reporting about livestock carcass disposal also may have been a problem with chronic farms. This interpretation is supported by the disparity between interview results from farmers suffering chronic losses and the recollections of WS personnel. This disparity may be due to the different periods covered by the 2 types of data collection. Our survey covered only 1998, whereas the recollections of WS personnel spanned a decade or more. Perhaps some chronic farms had carcass dumps prior to 1998 but no longer have them. Potentially all these factors were operating.






Last one, if you've read this far thanks.

Wolf Depredations Remain a Controversial Issue The Global Challenge of Living with Wolves, pp 2-3



Nearly all wolf depredations in the Midwestern states and in Montana occurred on private land, while more than 80% of depredations in Idaho, and about half of those in Wyoming, have been on federal lands

In the northern Rocky Mountains from 1997 to 1999, verified wolf losses amounted to .01 percent (1 in 10,000) of all sheep losses, and .03 percent (3 in 10,000) of all cattle losses.

Where lethal control is allowed, 168 wolves (5.5 percent of known wolves in those areas) were lethally removed in 2000 (presumably not including those killed surreptitiously).

Of course I'm sure you believe none of this because it's all a vast conspiracy to drive the rancher out of buisness!!

Livestock predation does occur. It is the huge, world ending problem that ranchers would like us to think it is? No it's not. Look, regardless of how outraged you are, and how much you hate the government, and how much you hate scientists who keep your elk and deer herds healthy, you have wolves and you will always have wolves so you better start educating yourself and stop spouting rhetoric that isn't doing anything except making you look like an ass.

You know, I don't expect you guys to understand population dynamics, animal behavior, predator-prey relationships or any of that other "scientist" bull crap but if you close your mind to things that might, JUST MIGHT, slightly change your view of the world, then you truly are ignorant. That is just sad. No more posts from me on this topic. Some people only see what they want to see. Much to their own detriment.

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

There is nothing new about using “science” (or pseudo-science) to “prove” a view point and muster support (or complacency). The value of this tactic not lost on the Nazis and has been used by others under various guises ever since for causes large and small, beneficent and evil. In any case, just because one side uses straight talk to address a situation and another uses enviro-shiek “science” does not automatically make the plain spoken side wrong.

Many Americans (especially the urban/suburpban version) seem to be fairly vulernable to blindly accepting studies done by "ivory tower" Ph. D's (Employed by who? & Getting their articles published where?) as being absolute gospel and thus not requiring even the slightest reality check with a simple "in the trenches" B.S. detector.

EKM

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

Yep your right. Because the general public lacks the ablilty to think on that level. So instead of reading the studies and looking at the data to see if it's true or not, it's much easier just to write it off as a government conspiracy against whatever group you belong to.

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

If you don't believe in science then you don't believe we have found cures for any of the diseases we have. You don't believe we can treat cancer in some people. You don't believe a little pill can get rid of a headache. Hell you don't believe in a common cough suppressant. You don't believe the engine in your truck that you bought within the last 5 years burns cleaner and more efficiently while giving you more power and better gas mileage. True science isn't the bible but hell only a fool completely ignores it. We might as well pick up our clubs and go back to the stone ages. No, I think some believe in science until it doesn't back up an opinion. If you do that you are making the same pitfall as those who mocked Columbus when they told him the world is flat. Looking back on that who ended up looking the fool, certainly not Columbus who thought the world was round. (He was right by the way.) Science itself is NEVER evil, it is only the truth. However you may use science for evil purposes like an atom bomb. That doesn't make the science evil anymore than a gun is evil for being used in a crime.

The FACT (not opinion) is wolves do not kill hundreds of livestock a day, or a week or even a month for that matter. Yes scientific data backs that up. Sure not all of wolf kills are reported but I think we've got a decent idea of what's happening. The rate which they kill does pose problems but not a worldwide hunger wave. "In the northern Rocky Mountains from 1997 to 1999, verified wolf losses amounted to .01 percent (1 in 10,000) of all sheep losses, and .03 percent (3 in 10,000) of all cattle losses." Whether you CHOOSE to believe or not the truth is out there and one day wolves will be back and someone will be right and someone will be wrong. Do you believe you will look a fool? If I'm wrong I will graciously admit it however I think the odds are stacked heavily in the favor of wolves being another normal predator than can be managed.


So again I ask realizing wolves are here to stay what is a viable solution to those who feel the wolf is out of control?

RE: A wolves truce?!?
 

Brute,

Don’t be silly. Of course not everything is a government conspiracy. On the other hand, not everything the government and their learned “experts” hold out to the public is the gospel truth either ---- otherwise we wouldn’t be sitting in the middle of Iraq with no WMD, tortured prisoners, and an American public wondering what surprise is coming next and “how are we going to fix this mess?” (hopefully a familiar refrain by now). As I have held up my end of this “wolf discussion”, the main tenet I’ve been holding out to y’all is asking for is a little less blind (read naïve) trust in the feds and a little more well deserved skepticism as to their ability to read the future and handle events.

EKM