HELP SAVE THE WOLVES

[lillyorchid]

Sorry if this may offend any of you, but wolves are my top #1 favorite animal and this really bugs and disguest me to no end. It only takes about 2 minutes to fill out and send via internet.



Tell the Bush Administration It Has No License to Kill Wolves!


We must stop the Bush Administration's plan to declare open season on the wolves of Greater Yellowstone and central Idaho. Once approved, Wyoming and Idaho intend to begin exterminating up to half their gray wolves -- by aerial gunning and other cruel methods -- as early as this fall.

Submit your Official Citizen Comment, opposing this disastrous plan, before August 6.


http://www.nrdconline.org/campaign/actionfund_wolfaerial



The restoration of the gray wolf in the northern Rockies is one of America's greatest environmental success stories. Wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone and the central Idaho wilderness in 1995 after being exterminated by settlers, trappers and the federal government. Since then, these new populations have increased to 1200 or so animals. Wolves play a crucial role in northern Rockies ecosystems, helping to preserve riparian forests and maintain healthy populations of raptors, rodents and coyotes. They are also a boon to the region's economy, generating tens of millions of dollars in tourist revenue each year.

But Rocky Mountain wolves are by no means out of danger. The Bush Administration has proposed turning over management authority to state agencies, and the governors of Idaho and Wyoming are seeking to kill off more than 700 wolves -- over two-thirds of the Yellowstone and central Idaho populations. Instead of killing wolves, these states should be redoubling their efforts to protect them in the face of mounting development and other habitat destruction. The Bush Administration should continue protecting wolves under the Endangered Species Act until the states have plans in place to ensure that wolf populations will flourish in the future. They should make certain that connections are maintained between the three populations in the northern Rockies so that these populations remain genetically healthy. These ecological bridges are increasingly important as rural sprawl and industrial development continue to fragment wolf habitat throughout the region.

Even as the Bush Administration pushes ahead with its plan to strip Greater Yellowstone's wolves of federal protection early next year, it has announced a separate proposal to authorize the mass killing of wolves -- even while wolves are still on the endangered species list. The administration wants to be able to kill wolves anywhere that elk herd numbers may be affected by wolves. It is focusing on areas where elk herds are smaller than the states want. But those few cases of declines in elk herds have been caused by a combination of factors including habitat destruction, drought and human hunting -- not just by wolves. And in most areas of the Northern Rockies, elk numbers are at all-time highs.

Government agencies have already purchased planes and helicopters that are capable of gunning down entire packs of wolves in minutes, and state officials have said they would begin slaughtering wolves immediately if the plan is approved, reversing more than a decade of recovery efforts. In Wyoming, wolves would be classified as “predatory animals” in three-fourths of the state, allowing them to be killed by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

Not so sure its that extreme.... It sounds like wolves would only be permitted to be killed if they were in the act of attacking somones livestock, or pets. and that they would be regulated, like deer and bear are regulated by hunting seasons.

Heres a few different links too:

http://www.enn.com/anim.html?id=1910
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007Jul03/0,4675,WolvesWyoming,00.html

Not sure what to make of it, but i dont think the animals should be killed... wonder how itll end up though, i DOUBT there are many that would actually stand for that and allow it to pass without careful thought.

 

[fuscusking13]

This has been a problem for some time. Wolves are one of my favorites as well(actually my entire bedroom is wolves). I used to donate to a charity called defenders of wildlife, but havent really had the extra money to do so lately. They are huge on the Wolf forfront as well as any other animals in need. Even up here people continue to be ignorant. Black Bears are making a comeback (finally) and everyone wants them gone. What people dont understand is that long before we were here they were here. Most people only think of themselves and its a shame. Wolves, bears, and many other persecuted species pose little to no threats to humans on a day to day basis. The problem is people are lazy, uneducated, and ignorant, so problems occur. I wish we had wolves up here, that would make my life. To be able to sit quietly in the woods and observe a pack in their natural habitat would be awesome. Bush cares not for the lives of animals or the good of the environment and he has proved that many times over. The good news is he has little time left to destroy our country further. People dont seem to understand that once the environment gets to a certain point there is no turning back or reversing the effects. People have been, are, and will always be our own and nature's worst enemy. Let us all hope this law does not pass. Dan M.

 

[Griz]

I would be HIGHLY disappointed if the Government wasted our taxpayer dollars by paying some high priced gunner to shoot these animals down. I would GLADLY pay a few hundred to be able to go out and legally harvest a wolf now and then so long as the population warranted it.

I am leaving next month for a black bear hunt in Ontario and hope to harvest a wolf while I am up there. Why waste tax payers money when legitimate hunters can do the job much more humanely? Just doesn't make sense.

Griz

 

[fuscusking13]

I myself am not a hunter... I don't eat a lot of meat, so there is no point to me killing an animal I am not going to eat, but I am not at all opposed to hunting(well other than Canned hunting which is the worst thing I have ever seen). Hunting an animal you intend to eat is about one of the most natural things a person can do. I wish you the best of luck Bob, and you'll have to post some pics if/when you get something! But this thing wanting to kill wolves for no reason other than them inconveniencing a few people is absolute crap. There is no reason for it other than lazy misinformed "old school" type farmers who cant deal with change(even though Wolves were there long before they were). I say shoot the farmers and end the problem that way. I mean the wolves attract a lot of people to Yellowstone and help boost the local economy thru tourism.

I also love that they are complaining about Elk numbers. How can you hunt animals when you have no knowledge of them??? 9 times out of 10 a wolf, or wolf pack is going to target sick, injured or other weak members of the herd. Animals that you don't want reproducing anyway. Of course they will take babies now and again and some perfectly healthy animals, but the majority are animals that were probably not going to survive much longer anyway. How much of an accomplishment is it to hunt down a sick injured animal??? Not much in my opinion. Wolves are actually good for a herd of Elk in the long run keeping the weak members out of the gene pool. I am sick of ignorance in general and fed up with the "general public" in more than one sense. People need to get their acts together and start doing something positive. I am way over tired so if anything doesn't make sense I apologize.Take care, Dan M.

 

[Griz]

Daniel, I understand where you are coming from. But, I have to wonder if you made your post only with the education that the initial poster provided? The NRDC is a liberal organization that only provides one side of the story. While I truly am not educated on what is taking place with the wolves, I also know to take what that particular website states with a grain of salt. I am not saying that they are wrong. I am stating that they have a very bias view and therefore you have to be careful.

Even though I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I take their stances with a skeptical eye as well. I do believe in a lot of what they do and therefore have chosen to support them. However, I do not take their word as the gospel. I educate myself first before I formulate an opinion.

Wolves are needed in order to help keep the balance of nature. I can't argue against that. I also cannot argue against those that enjoy hearing/seeing them in the wild. I am THRILLED to be able to hear them next month and look forward simply to see signs made by them.

With that said, I also completely understand the farmer's point of view in that they have to protect their own livestock. The whole, they were here before us argument holds no water with me. We're here and therefore everything must adapt.

We do owe it to our environment to help preserve it. We owe it to the wildlife to ensure that they can see a tomorrow. Sometimes the ends to the means also calls for us to hunt certain species to a manageable level. All of which is done, ultimately, for the welfare of the animal.

Again, I have no information about the situation with the wolves. I have not read up on them simply because that is not a battle I am choosing to fight. But, I applaud those that are and encourage them to continue so long as they have educate themselves about the full story and not just the articles written by one side. Both sides to an argument typically have valid points that must be taken into consideration.

Griz

 

[Seamus Haley]

I am not saying that they are wrong. I am stating that they have a very bias view and therefore you have to be careful.

Numbers make it possible to both tell the strict truth and severely mislead a potential reader.

Wolves are harem breeding apex predators. The amount of space and prey needed to maintain a viable breeding population is enormous and even a seemingly small number of wolves can represent an overpopulation problem.

A lot of the extreme anti-human type animal rights organizations will put out fractional or percentile numbers... the rhetoric generally goes along the lines of "Wolves have made a rebound but are only up to one quarter of what their population was before State X offered a bounty on wolf ears in (pick a year between around 1850 and 1940). (Name of political interest group or lobbiest) wants to exterminate these beautiful and majestic blah blah blah" Not only is the species hyped up to the point of near mythical importance and many, many completely inapprooriate subjective and anthropomorphic traits are applied to tug at the heartstrings... but there will never be any mention made of any ideal or maximum poulation numbers as determined by biologists being paid to actively monitor them. One quarter of the old population in one twentieth the space just doesn't work out nicely. If you really *dislike* wolves, then by all means support any efforts made to turn them untouchable and then, when they've got the canine equivalent of chronic wasting disease and are regularly being hit by cars and are knocking over suburban trashcans... you can tell me what a beautiful thing it is that the population is back up where it was two hundred years ago.

 

[fuscusking13]

No, as I said I have been an active member of the defenders of wildlife for some time, thru donations and other such avenues, specifically to monitor the wolf situation. I have done a lot of research on the subject and even wrote my final high school paper years ago on the ongoing issue.

I myself am not a radical physcotic who is a people hater, but the sad truth is we spread like the plaugue destroying every thing in our path with little regard to the after effects. 1200 wolves is by no means over bearing for that area. I see no problem with what Bob proposed for regulated hunting, but to slaughter animals for no good reason and in such large numbers is assinign. I am also not saying to help them along more, or reintroduce others, but this proposed idea is insanity.

As far as the farmers go...its not to hard to build a fence to keep wolves out, or buy a sheepdog to protect your herd of whatever. The government also offers them reinbursment for lost livestock from the Wolves anyway(unless that suddenly changed). Wolves may be smart but they arent going to open gates and things to get into your livestock. Not to mention if you pull up the numbers especially considering the number of wolves, very few livestock are lost. Everybody now adays is so concerned with the almighty dollar in their pocket, and dont care who or what must die so they can swing an extra 50 bucks that year. It's sad. The indians managed to live with these animals in huge numbers. Obliviously times have changed, but co existance is definately possible, problem is no one wants to put in the minimal effort to avoid confrontation. Also there are other areas of the world for these wolves to go...relocate a few packs, dont kill them. I am sure people would have a problem if the government went into LA and killed people to reduce the population. There is no difference here, except that at least people would know whats going on and have a chance at defending themselves. Some might say thats an extreme comparison, but we are a species of animal with families to provide for just like they are. People tend to forget that we fall under the same Kingdom, Phylum, and class as these animals, it isnt until order where we divide, so how far off really is that anology? Not so much. Dan M.

 

[Griz]

Daniel, to even imply that the removal of wolves is the same as the removal of humans, puts you well within the wacko mentality. Maybe you need to rethink that statement.

I take it from your post that you have not priced fencing. The fencing needed to keep wolves away from what is now free-ranging livestock would be in the millions, nay, tens of millions of dollars. Hardly minimal if you ask me.

Again, I am all for reaching a compromise that works but if it comes down to the wolves or the human race, then the wolves must go.

Griz

 

[ravensgait]

Hey Dan,, if you want to know about Wolves your a member of the wrong organization. As for your answer to solving the problem well it is naive at best.. You can't fence wolves out and they'd eat a sheep dog.

As for aerial hunting well can't see that working to well in the mountains and not a real good idea for controlling the populations in that area.

Having the Wolves back is a good thing but they have to Get Along so to speak. Next to humans many believe they are next in intelligence, really fascinating animals but they are animals. They have to be managed , to many and soon people start losing their dogs off their porches and cats are snack foods and that doesn't take into consideration the real losses that ranchers incur from them. Sure some Ranchers over react but not as much as the Animal Rights crowd over reacts and spreads it's lies and half truths. Always makes me wonder why anyone who keeps any kind of pet belongs to these Groups as they are against Pet Ownership and have a real hard time with the word Truth.

Best to have a few Wolves than to piss everyone off till they want them gone again.

People seem to forget that Man is a part of nature just as much as a Wolf or anything else.

Petitions like the one above use lies and BS to get people to sign them and people will sign because most Americans are so removed from these animals or most any wild animal for that matter that they haven't a clue other than what these nut jobs tell them. ..... Randy

 

[Wolfy-hound]

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)

 

[Seamus Haley]

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.

 

[SPJ]

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).

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

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. ^_^

 

[fuscusking13]

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.

 

[Griz]

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

 

[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)

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.

 

[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)

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

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?

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!

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

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.

 

[fuscusking13]

"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.