RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

CalNewbie:

Your post is very thoughtful and responsive to my questions. With respect to the quoted text -- which I do not attribute to be your position, necessarily -- I don't buy it. There is no right of wildlife. Under what construction do animals have rights? Being protected by law is NOT the same as having a right. A right may be said to be something to which one has a just claim. Animals are in no position to assert claims for justice or just treatment. Animals are not endowed with the faculty of choice (the appetitive faculty is distinct from the faculty of choice) which is necessary for moral or just action, and without the capacity for just action, I don't see animals having any stature in questions of justice. Animals just aren't moral peers of human beings. This kind of reasoning, the kind that leads to animals having rights, is fundamentally empty and ludicrous.

Whether it is prudent and good husbandry of our planet to reintroduce wolves to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is a reasonable question, but it is not a question of rights of animals as they have none.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Wolf attacks Saskatchewan man
Last Updated Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:49:25 EST
CBC News
REGINA - A man in Saskatchewan is recovering after being attacked by a timber wolf on New Year's Eve.

Fred Desjarlais was coming home from his job at Key Lake, about 550 kilometres north of Saskatoon, when the wolf lunged at him from the ditch.


Fred Desjarlais
Desjarlais said the wolf bit him several times on the back, arm, leg and groin.

He grabbed it around the neck and tried to wrestle it into submission. A busload of his co-workers showed up and helped chase the wolf away.

Desjarlais received stitches and was taken to hospital where he has been undergoing a series of rabies shots. The wolf was later shot and is being tested for rabies.

Desjarlais said he thinks the wolf was hungry and sick. It was limping when it approached him.


A Canadian gray (or timber) wolf. (CP photo)
"He wasn't a young, healthy one," Desjarlais said. "If he was he wouldn't have been there. He wouldn't have done what he did. It was just an older wolf that was doing what he had to do to survive and I just reacted, thank God, the way I did and survived it."

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Like it or not, man has now taken the place as the top predator within the world’s food chain, it’s now man’s responsibility to also step in to manage ALL wildlife populations to ensure healthy ecosystems for our future. “Natural Biological Management” that was taught in colleges throughout the US in the 70’s has since been proven to be a very ineffective way to manage the ebb and tide of all wildlife populations. Only when radical, single focused groups are allowed to influence the management of a single species, is the system thrown off balance. The introduction of the grey wolf in the Idaho, Montana and Wyoming tri-state area is a grand example of how to mess up the balance of nature, not help it

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Alsatian - You are correct, I don't hold the position of the quote you cited, I was just noting it as one of the accepted rationalizations for reintroduction. I think that the philosphy of the "right" that they're refering to is sort of an "innate" right that all creatures have. An animal has a "right" to live, we have a "right" to harvest them for our needs. Sort of a touchy-feely kind of philosophy of the animal kingdom.

Like you, I don't think that it "hold up". For instaance, we have plenty of rational for doing everything we can to eliminate mice, rats, etc. Perhaps its the fact that we have no real chance of ever succeeding that makes it a non-issue. Yet I can recall a newspaper column where someone complained to city hall that the city pest control was killing rats instead of trapping and relocating them.

I've been approaching the arguement from the other side. That is, now that they're back, what is the rational for removing them? Is improved hunting opportunities a sufficient motive? You started the thread asking fellow posters how wolves had impacted their hunting. I'm not disputing that there is an impact. While not trying to get anybodys blood boiling, it can be an emotional topic.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I'm sorry when I studied the "social contract" every right had a connected duty. What is the "duty" of any wild critter?

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

If I knew where the last wolf in the lower 48 was, then I wouldn’t be on this Forum “talking” with you good folks….

Load him up, take him back to Hinton, Alberta where this mess started in 1994, turn him over to the old man who tried to warn the USFW what they were about to unleash “on the folks down South” and tell him…. You were right. We tried ‘em on for size and it wasn’t a good fit at all, we’d rather keep the fine game we have rather than make room for this thing.

I’m sure he is still up there just splitting a gut at our problems. And as for the wolf, well he could live out the rest of his days (assuming he came along peacefully) without worrying about being an endangered specie any more because in Canada there is NO SHORTAGE OF WOLVES (no shortage in Alaska either, they are thriving to excess, thank you).

Of course, that is just my opinion ---- however, I'm betting I have a innumberable elk and moose that love me for it (figuratively) and I simply care more for their welfare than the dream-quest of the lower 48 pro-wolf folks ---- and for me that is just kinda the long and the short of it.

EKM

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Boomp boomp boomp.....Hello is thing on? Can I have your attention? EKM....yeah I see you in the back coloring and talking to your friends. Put the crayons down and listen for a second. Ok do I have your attention now? OK good.

The problem is not the wolves. The problem is the LEGISLATION. The wolves should be hunted and controlled. Right now they've got the secret service protecting them and that ain't right. ANY predator left unchecked will cause problems. Hell the cats were tearing up deer herds here in Utah due to over population and we upped the tags. So instead of packing up the wolves and telling some old Canadian he was right. Maybe we ought to take a pack to Washington to feed on a few politically correct dogs and cats. My guess is you'd see a hunting season real soon.

Legislation is the problem!!!!!

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Flame me if you want however the Wolf does have a place in our environment....maybe I am living in a "dream world" I have studied wolves for over 30+ years. I know well what they are capable of, but rarely do unless they are introduced to it by MAN!! Todays society wants to embrase the wild they do have no clue about....that includes Elk, Bison, Deer, Wolves, Cougars, and hell....lets add in badgers, wolverines, porcipines, and the like of them! People do not care and they go at things blindly....it is not the animals fault!! Damn shame too!! But then I reckon my friends, so many just do not give a crap anymore...do not know how to balance their lives, yada, yada. I am not referring to you as I have a great respect for many of you....just people in general that think they know so very much. Live the life, and then tell their tales....

Walk with a "cat" walking beside you about 10 -15 feet away for several miles on a full moon night and learn, learn from the howls you hear from yotes and wolves....it is all a lesson.(I have experienced!) Yes, they are predators...yet so are we. They have every right the same as we do my friend to be here. JMHO. :)

And yes, if I needed to I could and would hunt them........nuff said from this lady....

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Most of the hatred against wolves comes from people that don't really know how to hunt. They come from the city and expect a deer or elk will be behind every tree.

The wolf will never kill every elk in an area and man will never kill every wolf. The wolves will keep the elk and deer herd in check and healthy. Learn to live with them.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Maineguide5424: The wolves will not kill every elk. Live to learn with them. I don't find that very comforting. Couldn't the same thing be said of market hunting: it won't kill all animals. Once the cost of bagging boat loads of ducks exceeds the rising price that the wealthy will pay for them in restaurants, then market hunting will stop, problem solved. In fact, this would seem to apply to hunting in general. Just let people go at it. They won't kill all the elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats. They will just reduce the numbers to such a low population and to such remote regions that the numbers of hunters willing to undergo the trouble to bag them will regulate the numbers. Brilliant! Why didn't we think of this before?

Christine: No disrespect intended, but I don't have a clue what point you were trying to make. Can you order your thoughts into a series of syllogisms or something ressembling logic? Or are you just saying "I vote for wolves. My feelings are with wolves." Just sharing feelings does not require supporting arguments or a road map of how you came to your conclusions, but I assume you are doing more than just sharing your feelings. Help us out. What is your point and why should we buy it?

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Maineguide5424, holy crap you are full of it. Its stupid attitudes like you have that brought the wolves here in the first place. I have been born and raised in Idaho and I tell ya that I dislike the wolves and I have never lived permanently in a big city, I did serve a mission for my church for 2 years in L.A. As far as being successful well thats a bunch of crap too. I want you to call the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association (208-342-1438) and ask them why so many outfitters guideing in central Idaho have closed up shop in the last 5 years. I am sure its just because they became lousy hunters and guides, even though most of them have had excellent bussiness going back 40 plus years or more. I guess even though I will turn 31 this year and have 10 bulls and a few cows under my belt that I too must just not know how to hunt because I am changing areas to get away from the damn wolves. I promise you that when you see your favorite area become elkless because of the wolves then will will see them in a different light too? And if you don't then I am guessing that you are just a anti hunter in wolf's clothing.

Christine B I have read you past posts and I know where you stand, I have said this before but I want you to know that I and most of the local hunters here in Idaho, Montaina and Wyoming don't want to totaly wipe them off the face of the earth or even here in the lower 48. But we want to be able manage them. Right now there are over 400 wolves in from central Idaho to southen Idaho alone. Thats not counting any of the yellowstone wolves in East Idaho that bounce between wyoming and Idaho in and out of yellowstone park. Just looking a 400 wolves alone they each kill 1.5 elk per week and yes I have said that before too. That figure BTW comes from our own Fish&Wildlife service. Its doesn't take a rocket scientist to add the numbers and figure out that an area can and will be depleated and hurt by wolves. Yes I agree they will not kill every elk but they can and do kill many elk. And the elk numbers do drop to a very low unhuntable % thats left. I'll be very honest,,,, I am so angry and pissed because I have seen it first hand!!!! But yet I then have other people try to tell me that because I don't have a degree in wildlife from some major univerisity that I just don't know what I am talking about and I am only seeing a little picture. I'll promise you and others I'll fight like hell to get the wolves delisted, and hopfully with my and others efforts it will be enough so that my kids and your kids will be able to enjoy elk hunting too in the great state of Idaho! I agree and fear its true what ElkampMaster said that in 20 or so years we might look back at now and say wow I wish it could be like the good old days of elk hunting again.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Rather,
Voting for 11 more years of the same, along with some hoped for promises of "we'll do better", eh!

Given the track record over the last 11 years, and the current ongoing slaughter of fine game, good luck with that. Net, net bottom line I vote for the elk and the moose --- while there is still time, and I have no faith whatsoever in the government on this matter.

ChristineB,
From the pro-wolf side, I would trust your input further than anyone’s thus far --- it appears to come from the heart and not from the scientific/statistical mumbo jumbo; however, it is likely that we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one as IMHO, time has run out.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Sure is funny how a great majority of the people who love wolves (99.9%) don't live around them?
Does the thought of wolves roaming free in the west make you feel all warm & fuzzy inside?
Wolves have had a major impact on some ranchers in my area. Elk & deer populations are on the decline.

I just wish we the people could manage or big game populations with good sound science & smokeless powder. Not emotions.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I'm not saying there isn't a problem because I believe there is. All I'm trying to say is put the blame where the blame is due. I still feel "the wolf is a super predator and will eat all the deer and elk" argument just doesn't hold water. Every post I see from you on this subject is headed that direction. The problem is the wolves master, not the wolves themselves.

I'll tell you something else too. You have a lot better chance of the government de-listing them and turning management over to states than you do of the government ok-ing wiping them out. So the best way to help out the suffering elk herds and get these things de-listed and start getting populations in check.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I hope we've kept the receipt. Maybe we get store credit? :D:D

Except for those you kill and eat of course....

Levity aside, here's another example of how a full ecosystem has serendipitous benefits to other creatures in the wild kingdom:

From the LA Times:

After a 30-year struggle, grizzlies are multiplying throughout Yellowstone National Park as another top predator — the gray wolf — has helped build the bear population in a surprising way.

The numbers tell the success of grizzly bear restoration: About 650 bears roam the Yellowstone region today — up from roughly 200 when the animal was first protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1975 — and bears have expanded their range by 40%, says Chuck Schwartz, federal scientist and head of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team.

Yet as robust as the recovery has been, new threats could affect the animals in the future. So many grizzlies roam Yellowstone that young bears search for new territory outside the park. Sometimes they kill livestock on surrounding private land, prompting ranchers and their political allies to seek removal of the bear's protected status.

But others say the bears should remain protected because emergent threats to their food supply could undermine the progress of the last three decades.

Grizzlies must put on fat to fuel a winter slumber that lasts about five months. Although bears have broad tastes, the kind of fat required to pull off the big sleep comes from less than a handful of high-protein sources.

Carcasses of winterkill elk and newborn calves provide food in spring. In summer, bears switch to native cutthroat trout spawning in dozens of Yellowstone streams as well as army cutworm moths that migrate en masse from farms to the blooms of the alpine tundra. In fall, whitebark pine nuts provide high-protein, fat-rich seeds.

Yet elk populations are down from a high of 10 years ago due to drought and more predators. Infestations of blister rust and bark beetle threaten whitebark pine nut production, which is erratic in the best of times. Biologists say lake trout that anglers illegally introduced to Yellowstone Lake and whirling disease have reduced cutthroat trout populations.

Enter the gray wolf, an unexpected source of grizzly aid. Since 33 wolves were introduced to the park in 1995 — they number 170 today — bears have developed the habit of stealing their kills. John Varley, director of Yellowstone's Center for Resources, the park's science branch, says wolves provide food for at least 12 species, including bears, bald eagles and some beetles.

"The one thing we totally underestimated was how many other mouths [they] would feed," Varley says.

"In the Pelican Valley [of central Yellowstone], it's not if a bear will take a kill, but when," says Doug Smith, Yellowstone's wolf project director. "Every documented ungulate killed by a wolf pack in the last five years has been taken over by a grizzly."

Smith says that the highest number of grizzlies ever seen on wolf kills — not just in the Pelican Valley, but throughout the park — was at a time when the whitebark pine nut crop failed.

Park wildlife biologist Kerry Gunther agrees that wolf kills may be an important food source, "especially in spring, when there isn't always a lot to eat. We've actually seen bears trailing the wolf packs."

Adult male grizzlies benefit the most. Young bears can't fend off a wolf pack, and sows with cubs are reluctant to approach wolves to protect their young. Even so, wolves don't always consume an entire carcass, and females and cubs sometimes get the leftovers. In the future, Gunther will study whether sows have more young or begin having cubs at a younger age as a result.

The grizzly's uncanny ability to adapt may prove sufficient to overcome changes to diet and environmental conditions. And nothing demonstrates their power of opportunism better than the arrival of the new predator on the block.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

And if that wasn't enough, here's something from MSNBC on controlling deer populations.

In Friday’s edition of the journal Science, McGraw and colleague Mary Ann Furedi concluded that natural, slow-growing ginseng, as well as valuable forest herbs, "are likely to become extinct in the coming century" if deer keep grazing at current rates.

One solution that he believes will ensure the herb’s survival is to reintroduce mountain lions, wolves or other natural predators to the Appalachians.

“Nature is out of balance here because we’ve killed off the top predators, so the obvious solution is to restore them,” McGraw said. “But obviously, that’s not going to be everyone’s choice.”

Curtis Taylor, chief of the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources’ wildlife section, called it a “totally unrealistic” suggestion.

“That would be sociological suicide,” he said. “Look at what’s going on out West with the reintroduction of wolves. There are hundreds of thousands of acres there with no people, and people are fighting it. I wouldn’t even dream of proposing to people that we reintroduce mountain lions.”

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Here's something to support your thought:

The main factor influencing elk mortality turns out to be severe weather. (Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol 65). In 1997 when the elk were weakened by an unusually harsh winter, wolves killed 26% of those they tried to catch. The following year, when the weather was milder the elk were healthier and the wolves' success rate dropped to 15%. Recent mild weather has allowed the elk population to increase, even know the wolf population has also grown (Levy, S New Scientist, issue 2367). Elk are undoubtedly the wolves' primary prey, but are unlikely to be eaten unless the elk are too sick, hungry, old or young to defend themselves. It has been found that healthy elk are very good at protecting themselves against wolves. In fact, several wolves in the park have died of wounds inflicted by slashing elk hooves or antlers. (Levy, S New Scientist, issue 2367)

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

CalNewbie: RE Journal of Wildlife Management brief. Reality check. Some of the folks reporting their experiences are saying elk are eradicated from some of their hunting areas. This doesn't gibe with "elk numbers increasing." Is the point that elk numbers are increasing . . . in places not frequented by wolves? This would, of course, be irrelevant and more than disingenuous on the part of the report to suggest otherwise. Also, if the wolves are less successful when Elk are healthier, does this mean less elk are killed or that the wolves just have to work harder for their meal? Nothing I heard of this report gave me comfort. Additionally, the dates discussed seemed to have been 1997 and 1998, fully six years ago.

I admit I know precious little about this topic. I'm trying to find out about it. I stirred up this trouble because I had read on another forem that the sky was falling, the wolf was going to destroy elk hunting. I wanted to get information and find out what people here knew. So far I am not persuaded that the wolves are good in any sense, and certainly not good without management. On the topic of management, I'm not sure what good hunting wolves as predators will do if they are as stand offish as some have said they are.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Cal, of course as a hunter I pay, kill, and eat the game I take. That is how it works and has worked over the course of decades to create the largest elk herd in the world right here in Colorado. If I quit hunting and paying in fees to CDOW our elk and moose programs will be adversely affected.

I assumed (silly me), that most sportman understood how this has worked.
By 1900 absent regulated hunting and with the presence of commercial harvesting, game populations were devastated. Laws were passed and it was on the backs of sportman's licenses and fees that the game populations were built back up through game managememt. For example, four hunters buy licenses, one hunter kills an elk, the state takes all the money from all four hunter's license fees and uses it to manage the herds and resources so that the benefit exceeds the drain for an overall net gain. No other group in American society in spite of their claims to the contrary have stepped forward to fund wildlife as generously.

Unlike the wolf, the hunter provides a net positive contribution; however, it took decades to get to where we "were" at. Yes, Colorado and Montana have gotten a fair bit of my money over the years; however, I always felt it was for a good cause. I don't hunt year around, I don't thrill kill, and I (and my offspring) kill in accordance to the CDOW's projections for population control.

Now with a seemingly whimsical roll of the dice, the USFW has chosen to gamble those decades of progress on the introduction of a trendy new specie to call their own, as they appeared to be bored with the more "ordinary stuff." Unlike hunters, the wolves do not bring in any money to the states to help further propagate the prey species (like a fee paying hunter does), in fact, wolves are draining resources away from Elk and Moose programs while at the same time literally "eating them for lunch." [Aside: You'd swear the USFW must have helped in planning the Iraq post war period, in either case it appears the planners can't see straight forward problems coming until it bites them right in the arse.]

I side with the elk and the moose, and that is the long and the short of it.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I find it so funny that when we hunters who have been around the wolves and see that they kill for fun. Then leave a carcass untouched, are told either we are liars or that we don't know what were talking about even though we have witness it first hand, because were biased and uneducated. I have been told by pro wolf supports that wolves would never do that and will always pick the bones clean at all times. But yet when the pro wolf people want to make a argument for the wolf bennefitting other animals such a grizzly bear. Then they somewhat admit that wolves will leave a carcass. Come on get the story strait! Thats half of the problem, its just a story on their behalf, a story that can be changed at their will to suit their needs.

CalNewbie, couldn't the drop in success be due to that their were so many elk killed by the wolves the year before? Humm I wonder!!!!! I know that if you go back in time into parts of the Lemhi zone in Idaho where I have hunted. And did this study that you would find a lot less elk kills by wolves now than a few years ago. Why because they have already done the damage! WOW imagine that humm. CalNewbie the more I read your posts the more I realise you belong in Huntington Beach CA with your delusional anti hunter ideas. If you do elk hunt or hunt at all which I am starting to doubt then man you need to wake up and realize the truth.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

LA LA LA LA LA!!! Maybe if I sing loud enough to myself the problem won't exist! Seems like so many people are doing this so that they don't have to deal with the problem. That's why they haven't been delisted yet. Time to get some legislators off their butts and make them work for the raises they keep giving themselves. For the people who don't think the wolves are a problem then you aren't living in reality and need to take your fingers out of your ears and quit singing. When you have problems managing them, you also have a problem with the wolves themselves. Unfortunately, just delisting them isn't the solution. Proper managment needs to take place before any true success can happen. Personally, (and I know that I'm opening myself up here) I wouldn't mind seeing them all gone. However, I know that's not realistic. I don't see a problem introducing them to the same people that introduced them back to us. It would only be fair. Maybe I can just wish that what goes around comes around.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Like you, I'm reading the citation and have no special insight into the methodology used. What it states however is that of the elk chased, X% were caught. If they caught 26 out of 100 one year and 15 out of 100 another, what that represents is that on average they've been less successful. That ratio wouldn't have anything to do how many they killed the previous year, unless the numbers had dropped so far that the study couldn't be statistically sound. One thing you notice these days studies, environmental or otherwise - its always attack. First deny the problem, then deny the conclusion, then call the science into question. It could be flawed or it coult be dead on. As I mentioned in an earlier post, 20% of surveyed USFWS scientists reported being pressured to change their data in order to support a political aim. And that is today, in the GW era, not Clinton.

I understand the frustration with that comment. However, it does demonstrate the same type of logic that has been put forth in posts for the anti-wolf agenda. That is, there are plenty of wolves in Canada and Alaska. Not truly endangered, therefore no problem. Obviously the folks making that statement are using the same approach. There are plenty of elk. Maybe not where you are, but there's no shortage. Tools used to twist the numbers are available to both sides of the debate.

I think that there are plenty of people on both sides of the arguement that are more than happy to casually dismiss facts that detract from their point of view. Myself, I've never tried to make the arguement that wolves are natural clean killing machines leaving no waste. I've cited articles that make just the opposite point. We have situations today where wolves go on a killing frenzy. My view is let the state control them. Relocate and/or cull those that do this, just as we do with mountain lions that won't stay away from livestock or hiking trails. We also have people who kill and leave the carcass. Wisconsin had a couple of teenagers who were responsible for a killing spree. Obviously we're not going to cull the teenagers, but we take action. If we get to judging a species by the most extreme behaviour of its members mankind would be the first on the chopping block.

There we go. So much for a friendly discussion of opposing viewpoints. Time for an insult. Yes, I hunt, but from the moniker you'll realize I'm new. If you re-read the salient points of my posts you should clearly understand that my viewpoint is that the wildlife resources don't just belong to the hunter. I also have stated that the wolf population should be controlled so that there are opportunities for wolf and man. That's not going to happen while they're protected. And the pro-wolf side is going to fight delisting as long as the anti-wolf side's plan of action is to shoot every wolf it sees as soon as its delisted.

What's hard in a forum like this is achieving a middle ground. Even a hypothetical one (cuz its not like we're making law here). The back-and-forth of postings doesn't lend itself to someone saying "I see your point, but have you considered this....". There are a few folks who have chimed in and advocated a middle ground, and I tend agree with them. I have no desire to shout down an oppossing viewpoint. I try to respond thoughtfully to comments on my posts and expound on my ideas. Many of the facts and figures are culled from the web and I've previously acknowledged that they aren't the end-all be-all.

As I've said, I simply don't think that its justified to wipe out a species out of its habitat just so that I would have more hunting opportunities. I think that its been shown that there have been benefits from the re-introduction. And while the decreased hunting opportunities available to some are a very real drawback, I think that the net impact on nature has been a positive one.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I would like to see them all gone also.
But I bet you could tell that from my handle.:D

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Calnewbie..... Maybe you should realize that being new, you don't have all the answers. As far as trying to keep it friendly, well, when you tell people what's best for them when you don't live with the problem it causes a problem. Try living with these beasts, and I mean it in the literal sense, before you tell us how we should deal with the problem. That's how we got into this mess in the first place. Someone else thought that they knew what was best. The problem is they don't have to live here. When it's your game, your livestock and your living that is affected, then I will take your opinion as one that counts. Until then, I'd prefer it if you'd get educated before you speak again. Before I listen to a wise man, I want to know that his wisdom didn't just come from a book that some jacka$$ wrote..... anyone can put a bunch of words on paper. It's the person with the experience that I put my stock in.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Hikchick - never said that I had the answers. What I have done is read up on the subject, consider various arguements and viewpoints, and made up my own mind. I've attempted to thoughtfully voice that opinion here, stating what I thought and why I thought it. I have no problem with someone who feels different, but it sounds as if you can't say the same. Just because someone takes a look at the facts and arrrives at a different conclusion than you doesn't mean that they're not educated on the situation. Your posts on the subject don't seem to contain any rationalization beyond the "no it isn't, yes it is" phase.

As you said, anyone can put words on paper, but it takes a bit o' time and effort to put a considered line of reasoning down. I'm interested in seeing yours should you choose to do so.

As far as livestock losses, I've already cited some information on that. Again, no comfort there when its your livestock that gets attacked. If you have seen figures that contradict mine, by all means post them. So what it gets back to is that you want to shoot that elk, and would prefer to shoot anything that takes that opportunity away from you. The ecology of your area should revolve around your interest in that week in September or October where you have the chance to hunt elk?

Also, where'd you get the idea that someone decided that reintroducing the wolf would be "best for them"? Everything has consequences and any good should seek to do the least harm. No matter what you do something or someone is going to be impacted. Tax money goes to manage federal lands that ranchers pay below market rates to graze on. Farmers get money for not growing something and in another area of the country farmers get federally subsidized water to grow the same thing. A building code drives up the cost of construction that prices people out of the market. An environmental reg increases the cost of gas that gives us less income to spend on other things. Tax dollars go to welfare recipients so that they don't have to live in the streets. The possible notion that we're going to reintroduce the wolf and everyone's going to be so happy that we'll be whistling zippity-do-da out of our a$$holes is silly.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Cal..... LIVE HERE and then tell me you know better. Like I said, experience speaks much louder to me than your "education from a book". Read all you want but until you LIVE it you won't know. Just like I can't talk to you about what it's like to live in California, you can't tell me what it's like to live with the wolf. Don't assume that I want the wolves gone just so that I can shoot another elk every year. BTW, I grew up on a farm and we never took federal money for anything, yet the federal government is governing animals that the law itself says belong to the state. Tell me where that logic comes from? Again, don't open your mouth about stuff that you really don't have a clue about and then claim that you are being "attacked" when others call you on your ignorance. Come to Idaho and find out for yourself how it is to live with them here. Then, and only then, will your opinion mean anything to me. So go ahead and keep an ignorant opinion, if it makes you feel any better, you are exactly where you belong with it.... in California.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I live in helena MONTANA. You hear from the fish and game there is NO wolves east ov the devide. mmmm DO wolves even know where the devide is? I am asuming not for I hunt the east side and see wolves quite often. Every time I tell the wordens the tell me they are BIG yotes. I kill 20 to 30 yotes a year.

I can tell you the wolves move the elk out of spots just like people do.If the wolves hunt there every day elk MOVE or die.The bad part is they move to spots that are privet .The same spots the ranchers SHOOT the wolves.I do not want all the wolves gone but the state should figger out a way to control there numbers.

To me it is no difrants than the bisin. The people vote to hunt them and the state says no. Just who dose the stae people work for? Must not be the people that live here in montana.

The wolves seem to do fine in places that have wolf hunting.The main reasion the wolf numbers went down was duw to the lack of food not hunting.Wen all the big game dissaperd so did the wolves.In betwen people hunting bad winters and prediters the food sors depleated for wolves. I beleave left aloan there numbers will fall agin.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

EKM, Thanks my friend.....I can appreciate your viewpoints more than you might think.
:)

Alsatian,

As a rule I articulate rather well.....no, this is not an issue of whether or not I am a Wolf lover or not. However, from my pic......I can tell you that I love my 7 year old Wolf. And he has been DNA tested so ....yes, my son and I live with one and he is an awesome animal. Not the point though.

I suppose my point by my original post was that most people take wild animals lightly....ie: do not study enough, or pay enough attention to truly be aware of cause and affect. People tend to put their desires to have the "cute, cuddly, and "poster kids" of the wild all saved prior to thinking about their actions. I have an entire library on Wolves...and could quote what ranchers have been reimbursed over the years to 1980, Wolf kills...etc. I do not believe all that I read though. I may have Wolf hybrids and a full
Wolf and love them dearly...to really study them one has to know them first hand. They are truly an awesome animal.....and Shaman(the one in the pic is 99.9% pure as per DNA testing.) I know how he is with me and my son.....and yes he is trusted to a degree.(I have other large domestic dogs and do not trust any animal 100%!) I had him nuetered at 4 mnths old, and have had him since he was 3 wks old. I am his Alpha and have a healthy awareness of the animal.

Bottom line is that yes, Wolves are a most intelligent predator, opportunist, and they have an intense will to survive. I think what made me become interested in them is the fact they are very much like humans with their pack order.....which although is most strict, has order and is loving and well deciplined. But...that is just idle banter.

Have they gotten out of hand, most certainly in some states..in
AK they have been delisted I believe and can be once again hunted and trapped. Do not quote me on that. I do know that the Black and Silver pelts bring the most money for trappers.
I feel that they need to be delisted in some states. Hell, we trapped, poisoned, shot and dang near caused them to become extinct. That is a deservice IMO..... scuse me some of you but.... I love hearing a Wolf howl...it is the voice of the Wilderness to me. But that is just one of many things I think about ....I hear it on a daily basis though. ;)

Delist them, make hunting and trapping legal on a per state basis, and Ranchers need reimbursed more for their livestock than what they have been receiving IMO. Did a spreadsheet from some of my books and the reimbursment level is minimal compared to the price of livestock, feed etc. Pretty bad IMO.
And as stated I would hunt them if I needed too. Go figure....I am no rancher so the intense hatred of some boggles my mind....it is not the Wolves fault, it is MANS FAULT!!!. I can and will understand an intense dislike however, and can agree something needs done...much more than the gooberment wants done or will do. It is late and I am rambling, just did not want to post and run. Hopefully this somewhat clarified what I meant....if not let me know. :)

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

ChristineB: Your wolf pet gives me no heartburn. Your admiration and appreciation for wolves, ditto, gives me no heartburn. To me it seems questionable to have introduced the wolves in the first place back into Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, but I am no wildlife management expert and don't know all the angles. However, the more I hear from people in this thread, the more I'm leaning to the side that something is substantially amiss, and corrective measures need to be put into place. It is questionable, in my mind, to introduce an animal only to have to take substantial measures to control it. Some disparaged my analogy to smallpox, but I fail to see the shortcoming of this analogy. To what good purpose were wolves reintroduced? I haven't heard a good explanation. Relative to reduction of overbrowsing by elk, I have a splendid sugggestion to address that problem -- allocate more elk licenses. Of course, this presumes the number of elk are above a target population -- as for example in Colorado where the game management people there have made it known present elk numbers are below a target number and they are attempting to whittle this number down through permit allocation policies. The reintroduction of wolves is history, however, and the question is what should be the future course. It seems to me that the right thing is to attempt to confine these animals to the park structure into which they were originally introduced. How is that to be accomplished? There's the rub. Not easy, I suspect.

I guess all of those who have been belly-aching about the wolves on this thread, myself included, should consider how our positions can be supported by the legislators accountable to us and get a letter in the mail to them. While this may have limited results -- wolf policy is NOT a high priority for most legislators, I suspect, and they probably don't associate their political future closely with their position on wolves. But what else is available? I guess those of you living in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho can pull the strings of your local Department of Fish and Game. Other suggestions? What US agency advocates this wolf policy and opposes Wyoming dealing with the problem?

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Today I sat down and read everyone's post on this subject again. (Whoosh, long read!) To be honest I couldn't even really figure out what everyone is arguing about. Sure there are some who say they would like to see the wolves gone. But I haven't seen one post here that says wolves SHOULD NOT be de-listed and hunted.

Essentially we are all saying the same thing. Yes I feel that wolves have their place in nature and some disagree and that's ok. But we all agree the wolves are not being properly managed and legislation needs immediate change. I personally am very concerned about the situation and am dissapointed in the government. I am worried that wolves are having a negative impact in some areas that needs to be addressed immediately.

So why don't you guys and gals say we stop arguing about this subject? They are here to stay and we all agree there needs to be legislative change. Anyone disagree?

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

rather_be_huntin, sounds good to me and I agree! Arguing about all of this here will not do any good but writing a letter to our local and fed, goverment leaders will. Let them know that as long as they are trying to help in our cause then they will get our vote again. But if they go against what we wish then we will find someone else to vote for who will get the job done. Believe it or not when a lot of people call them and talk voting most of them will stand up and take notice even if they might not agree with your views.

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

Said it before, and I'll just repeat myself now!

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

i think if u keep the wolf pop in check there wont be a problem but if u let there be to many then i say KILL THEM ALL!

RE: Wolves: problem or not?
 

I agree with the Chik! :D