HELP SAVE THE WOLVES

There's truth in both sides.
Too many wolves means some need to be removed. Aerial hunting employs a marksman to shoot a wolf with a high powered rifle. How this is less humane than a person on foot with the same weapon escapes me really. You can make a great shot from either point. You can also make a lousy shot from either point.
I suspect that having a professional shooter take out several wolves is more palatable to the masses rather than selling licenses, since "hunting" the wolves is barbaric.. which doesn't make sense really.. but when did we talk sense with regards to humans?
Fences will not stop wolves. Not unless the fense is ten feet, and buried at least four feet, and then.. it's a maybe stop. You are talking about fencing thousands of acres. It's not doable.
The main issue I have is that the livestock is allowed to graze on PUBLIC parkland. If the rancher is allowed to run cattle on public land, he should take whatever losses the wolves, the bears and whatever else natural is out there takes! That's MY land... that's YOUR land.. it's not HIS land.
Wolves taking animals on privately owned land are usually fair game anyway. Animals killed by wolves were usually paid for from government funding.
Populations of wolves are going to have to be small. How do you know that 1200 wolves are okay? How much area are they on? How much of that area is usable? HOw many game animals are there? Unless you have access to the raw numbers, and have the knowledge to apply those numbers, you can't say that 1200 wolves are fine, or overpopulated or underpopulated.
Most of the petitions to "save wolves" or to "Save baby seals" are based on the appeal to the public visually. The "Majestic wolf" or the "cuddley helpless seal pup". Most aren't based on much more than a good intention from people who listen to one side or the other of a volatile situation.
Wolfy(note.. my name includes HOUND... no funny cracks please? LOL)

There's a species related concern as well... The wolves that are being used almost exclusively in reintroduction programs are Canadian timber wolves... which are not now and never were native to some of the areas which have now established loose populations. *Similar* in many respects, to the wolves which were present in the continental United States... but a thirty-forty pound difference and a natural tendency to form a larger pack shifts the ideal prey species around a bit. Less inclined to nab a rabbit, far more inclined to grab say... a moose.

Now... the reintroduction problems aren't nearly as bad as they are made out to be by some radicals who are in favor of outright extermination. And the reintroduction programs are certainly not the amazingly successful problem free environmentally sound project that they are made out to be by the people haters.

The Yellowstone project is one of the longest established ones and the information coming directly from the rangers and biologists who aren't being paid by special interest whack-jobs is the most reliable. There are issues that need to be addressed and wolves which are starting to have population problems the opposite of those they had before- a "balance" hasn't been returned to anything, the predator prey relationships have just shifted to overpopulation in the other direction.

Dan, come to my house or go to Oxford if you want to see wolves. I can tell you first hand that they are not the vicious animals some make them out to be. They RUN when spotted (and they really aren't too easy to spot).
The woods behind me is the perfect place for them. I have deer, wolves, foxes, all kinds of animals come thru. The ONLY animal that has ever caused a problem for my domestic critters has been a raccoon.

People want to develop land for houses, encroach on wildlife, and then wonder why the animals end up in the backyard.

Anything the humane society has to do with is deceptive IMO.

Here is a lucky shot I got of a red fox before dawn one day (I will get a pic of a wolf one day LOL).
I would hate to see someone gun any of the animals down (except maybe a raccon LOL).

Originally Posted by SPJ

Here is a lucky shot I got of a red fox before dawn one day (I will get a pic of a wolf one day LOL).
I would hate to see someone gun any of the animals down (except maybe a raccon LOL).

We had foxes living in our backyard for a couple years in a row, awhile back. The babies were so cute playing together, and they never bothered our dogs, or my two summer outdoor bunnies.

Now we have a woodchuck in their old den, and as always, lots of wild bunnies to tease my two domestic boys. ^_^

I definitely agree with Wolfy hound as far as free ranging goes. If you let your animals free range them you assume the risk associated. People often seem to forget that we are animals! The smartest species...possibly, but for such smart animals we are the ones that seem to always screw up the balance by building more houses and businesses and such. Without us nature would work itself out just fine. We have control issues. We are the ones that need to balance. Like I said I see no problem with regulated hunting as long as populations warrant it, and I also see no problem relocating a few packs back to Canada if necessary(as long as its the whole pack), but to kill an animal because it is inconvenient is playing God, and thats not our place. I am NOT religious by the way, just saying, God, Buddha, Jesus, chuck norris, who ever you believe in. As far as fencing goes it is not hard to build a fence to keep a wolf out of PRIVATE PROPERTY, and ten feet is a slight exaggeration, they don't even use fences that high in most zoos for wolves, and guess what? They don't escape. Steve...if you truly have wolves I will definitely head up to that area. I have some vacation time this fall and I was planning a trip somewhere where I could spend some time with them anyways. We have coyotes, foxes, bears, deer, and just about everything else at my house (bobcats, fischers, possums, raccoons, skunks) and I have never had a bad encounter(well I have walked into a deer, but I survived). My previous dog used to chase the Bobcats into the woods and she never had a mark on her(and she was only 40 pounds) but people like to blame them for killing their dogs or cat too. You know what animal kills a lot of pets? Us! Especially behind the wheel of a car, but no one wants to regulate those due to lost pets. If you keep your pets out of the road and properly fenced,there is no problem, heck if you keep them properly there is no threats from wildlife either. Actually a few years ago my aunts dog was tied up in her yard about 10 feet from the road at least and got run over and killed by a car that decided to turn around in her yard! She should have had a fence, and that never would have happened. I have lived deep in the woods for a number of years(now I am in the woods, but not so deep anymore) and never had an issue with anything and we used to have HUGE coyotes and an outdoor cat, never an incident. If you properly keep and store your garbage, seal any food you throw out, and clean your grills etc after use there is no temptation for them to come to your house. People just cant be bothered, bottom line. People also don't think about the food chain. If you are feeding the birds/squirrels that invites the animals that prey on them to linger around as its an easy food source, especially those that feed the deer and such. All in all I am not a radical, but I feel that killing animals for our needs is selfish, especially when we put them there, relocation is perfectly fine, plus it would be good for the gene pool to move some animals from different areas, provided no diseased animals are moved, which could wipe out an entire species. Oh and as far as wolves eating a sheepdog, thats beyond unlikely. Predators look for easy prey items and don't like to tangle in a fight if they can avoid it, as an injury slows you down and a predator cant afford weaknesses as it impairs their ability to hunt and find food, as well as keeping up with the pack which travels great distances quite often, so unless cornered they are going to run and not fight. Why do you think they use Anatolian Shepherd dogs in Africa to keep lions away? Do you really think that dog could beat a lion in a fight? Of course not, but the lionesses cant afford and injury and wont risk an unnecessary fight. Nature has no sympathy for weak injured animals, thats the way it is. Not to mention if you were to use an Anatolian over here they are bigger than a lot of the wolves or at least on an even playing field. There are plenty of reasonable solutions, but the proposed is not reasonable. Take care, Dan M.

Daniel, with all due respect, your post is nothing but utter garbage. I could rip so many holes into your thought process that it is ridiculous. My cousin lives in Montana with roughly 600 acres. Do you really think it is cost effective to fence that 600 acres in? My original analysis of you still stands. You are an emotional thinker and do not base your opinions on sound logic. If you would step back for just a second and look at the nonsense you posted above you might be astonished.

While you say you walk down the middle of this argument, it is perfectly clear that your thought process mimics that of the radicals.

Griz

Hey Bob, first of all I appreciate the respect, but I challenge you to show me where I was I said is untrue.
1. We definitely are the ones that have thrown off the natural balance for years(there cant even be an argument here)

2. Disprove that more pets are killed by cars than wild animals.

3. Show me how many times a sheepdog of any kind was killed by the predator it is designed to protect against(thats the whole purpose these dogs were bred for, and I doubt they would still be in use today if they were not effective).

4. Show me how it wouldn't be just as effective to relocate, or how it could be less effective to open small seasons of regulated hunting. (personally regulated hunting is a great idea for several reasons as it would help control the population, keep many folks happy, although you will never keep those on each extreme happy, and will raise funds to put back into the project and such so that tax payers money is not spent on it).

5. so your cousin with 600 acres.... how many animals has he lost that were definitely to the wolves? My friend lives in Montana as well and has never even seen a wolf! He doesn't own that many acres, but he has lived all over that state, as well as Idaho too. My mothers side of my family farmed in Idaho and some still do and no problems there either.

6. Tell me we don't have control issues...war in Iraq cough cough, always having needs to control and regulate everything from other races of people to animals and everything else.

7. Show me how a wolf would get over an 8 foot fence that was properly constructed

8. prove to me that techniques such as keeping food and garbage smells to a minimum hasn't worked for years all over the world for keeping animals off your property on a regular basis(which you will not disprove, as its worked for me no problem for 10/15 years, and I know I am not the only one)

9. Tell me a fence wouldn't have saved my aunts dog, because it would have.

You say everything I said is garbage, yet it all seems to make sense especially by the numbers and facts, the proof is in the pudding if you take the time to read it from all sides, not just one or two. Remember there are three sides to every story, side 1, side 2, and the truth. You have to read it all and come to a conclusion based on all evidence. I am agreeing that there may be a problem, I just disagree with the proposed solution. Later, Dan M.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

Hey Bob, first of all I appreciate the respect, but I challenge you to show me where I was I said is untrue.
1. We definitely are the ones that have thrown off the natural balance for years(there cant even be an argument here)

I won't argue that. Man has obviously had a serious impact on nature.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

2. Disprove that more pets are killed by cars than wild animals.

Do you not see the ignorance in that statement? Show me one organization that keeps records on how many animals die due to nature. Good grief. Now do you understand my point?

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

3. Show me how many times a sheepdog of any kind was killed by the predator it is designed to protect against(thats the whole purpose these dogs were bred for, and I doubt they would still be in use today if they were not effective).

Hmmmm......let me go to wikipedia as I just know the same outfit that keeps track of animals killed in the wild also keeps track of how many sheepdogs we've lost. Good thought process!

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

4. Show me how it wouldn't be just as effective to relocate, or how it could be less effective to open small seasons of regulated hunting. (personally regulated hunting is a great idea for several reasons as it would help control the population, keep many folks happy, although you will never keep those on each extreme happy, and will raise funds to put back into the project and such so that tax payers money is not spent on it).

I am all for hunting when the population necessitates it.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

5. so your cousin with 600 acres.... how many animals has he lost that were definitely to the wolves? My friend lives in Montana as well and has never even seen a wolf! He doesn't own that many acres, but he has lived all over that state, as well as Idaho too. My mothers side of my family farmed in Idaho and some still do and no problems there either.

None to date nor has he seen but a handful of wolves. The argument here is not "how many animals has he lost". The argument is "how cost effective would it be for him to fence in his 600 acres.?" You're the one who stated:

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

As far as fencing goes it is not hard to build a fence to keep a wolf out of PRIVATE PROPERTY

It is THAT hard to fence in private property to keep a wolf out. Hard = time.....time = money. It's not a logical solution.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

6. Tell me we don't have control issues...war in Iraq cough cough, always having needs to control and regulate everything from other races of people to animals and everything else.

We were given dominion over the animals. Whether you claim said dominion due to our intellect and abilities or through scripture (which I subscribe to). It is our place to control and regulate animals. The problem is that some people take it to extremes on both sides.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

7. Show me how a wolf would get over an 8 foot fence that was properly constructed

Show me how the average farmer could afford to construct an 8 foot fence.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

8. prove to me that techniques such as keeping food and garbage smells to a minimum hasn't worked for years all over the world for keeping animals off your property on a regular basis(which you will not disprove, as its worked for me no problem for 10/15 years, and I know I am not the only one)

Common sense tells you that it helps. Common sense also tells you that animals will go where they see fit. I have 7 acres here at my house. I have 170 acres at my farm. You can keep smells to a minimum but you will see the animals. Oh, btw, sheep = food to a wolf. It's kind of hard to keep the smell of sheep to a minimum. Where talking about livestock Dan, not garbage.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

9. Tell me a fence wouldn't have saved my aunts dog, because it would have.

Your aunt could not prepare for stupidity. You're stating that a fence could have prevented this drivers stupidity. Tell me Dan, how well would that fence had protected that dog from say.......a bb gun? You cannot prepare 100% for stupidity. That dog was no safer behind a fence then when he was tied up.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

You say everything I said is garbage, yet it all seems to make sense especially by the numbers and facts, the proof is in the pudding if you take the time to read it from all sides, not just one or two. Remember there are three sides to every story, side 1, side 2, and the truth. You have to read it all and come to a conclusion based on all evidence. I am agreeing that there may be a problem, I just disagree with the proposed solution. Later, Dan M.

What numbers Dan? You've provided no solid numbers in which to support your argument. You are simply stating that your opinions are fact when to be blunt, they are not grounded in common sense. But, instead of you cherry picking your comments from earlier, let me post some:

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

I have lived deep in the woods for a number of years(now I am in the woods, but not so deep anymore) and never had an issue with anything and we used to have HUGE coyotes and an outdoor cat, never an incident.

You had an outdoor cat??? Was it fenced in? How did you protect it from the cruels of this world? I have outdoor cats and I lose 2 or 3 each year due to coyotes and hawks. Any person who has actually lived in the country knows that what you are saying goes against facts. To live in the country automatically means you will lose animals to predators. Period.

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

All in all I am not a radical, but I feel that killing animals for our needs is selfish,

So says the guy who is wearing leather shoes. Dan, you can't have it both ways. Of course we are going to take out some animals in order to fulfill our lifestyles etc. You choose to support the taking of a cows life so that you can eat and have nice leather items. These farmers are choosing to shoot the wolves so that they can partially fulfill your specific needs. After all, would you really want to buy a leather belt if it was full of wolf teeth holes?

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

Oh and as far as wolves eating a sheepdog, thats beyond unlikely.

Name, source, date please. Pack of hungry wolves vs one sheepdog. Seems like a no brainer to me. Fighting to survive is hardly worth getting injured over, right Dan?

Griz

Originally Posted by fuscusking13

or how it could be less effective to open small seasons of regulated hunting. (personally regulated hunting is a great idea for several reasons as it would help control the population, keep many folks happy, although you will never keep those on each extreme happy, and will raise funds to put back into the project and such so that tax payers money is not spent on it).

With that thought in mind, you also have to understand that Just because the word Regulated is put up in front of the word Hunting, does NOT mean that EVERYONE tags each and every deer or whatever, they harvest that year.
Sure, lots of people do, but there are LOTS of people who take quite a few more than the alloted number of deer you can harvest in a season.
Also dont forget that MANY hunters, travel to other states to harvest more deer. I know people that will harvest as many as five in one season, for meat for the rest of the year, from several different states.

Regulated hunting is all well and good, but in that sense, i could see why Governmental hunting would be better off. Theres quite a bit more control over it than, other people being allowed to use the "honor" system when tagging an animal and bringing to it to a weigh station. ( lots of people, again, avoid this process....)

I have definitely heard stories of Wolves eating peoples herding dogs, and, their livestock, i havent looked online, but if there ISNT anything online about it, that does not mean it does not happen. A Desperate pack of wolves, WILL attack any prey animal they can find, and while a sheepdog or other herding dog might be designed to protect a herd from wolves, that does not mean they are foolproof and that its never happened.



On the other hand, there was a show recently on TV that showed a man who raised up a wolf pack, he lived with those wolves, and they went to a farm and played some recordings of wolves out into the woods. To in a sense, mark the imaginiary wolves boundary.
Im not sure if it was 100% foolproof or whatever, but it definitely worked while they showed it on the show. It was jsut another experiment, but if people could get things like that to work, and maybe start marking boundaries of these imaginary packs, they could slowly solve the problems of wolves partially , attacking their herds and pets.
I would have to look the test up more though, but it was certainly worth looking into.

"With financial help and advice from the national group Defenders of Wildlife, two large ranches – one in Idaho and one in Montana – are using range riders and guard dogs together with solar-powered electric barriers and alarms triggered by radio telemetry to protect sheep. Neither ranch lost a single sheep to wolves last summer." Now this comes from the Christian Science Monitor and the rest can be found here:http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0201/p03s03-ussc.html
LOOK AT THAT GUARD DOGS, hmmm but I am being ridiculous of course .

By the way for those interested here is the Endangered species act in it's entirety, which when read will tell you that these farmers are well within their rights to kill a wolf that is attacking its livestock, family, pets, whatever.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA/ESA.html

Also the way wolves breed getting rid of large numbers could be detrimental. In a normal pack only one pair of wolves are allowed to breed which means if you have a pack of 20, only that one pair is producing offspring. So that means about 60 pairs of wolves breed a year (estimate of course) call it 160 for fun and thats still not a lot of wolves produced after predation, mortaility, disease, whatever. Plus each year older wolves are dying, so its not like they can afford to lose 700 out of 1200. Wolves only live 6-8 years on average, so most of the originals(if not all) that were released are already dead. That could set a downward spiral and before you know it the wolves are gone again and we are back to square one. I think open up a short season each year and allow maybe 150 animals to be taken, and if after 3 years thats not working out one way or another just adjust the number of tags sold. Of course there are going to be those that cheat the system, but they are cheating now as well, thats a no win situation there. 700 is an absolutely insane number. Also the wolves in this area employ much smaller territiories which means food is plentiful, otherwise they would need more space to sustain a pack. Canadian wolves use 100's(some even 1000) of square miles per pack, ours in that area are using 25-50, so obliviously food is plentiful, despite what Elk hunters seem to think. All in all there are so many solutions that dont gun down a pack of wolves by chopper who cant even get away. At least they have a chance against a hunter on foot. Anyways, like I said the information is out there, you just have to look. Dan M.