[M.E.Eldridge]

Perusing through my Fur-Fish-Game back issues, I saw a debate emerging back and forth between biologist types and bush pilots/trappers about wolf predation in Alaska. The bush pilot claimed to have flown over a traveling wolf pack of about 20 members as it went along its way and he noticed many uneaten fresh moose(and other animal) kills. Biologist charges that this is untrue and illogical. Since quite a few THR'ers seem to live in Alaska and seem quite aware of such matters, I was wondering which opinion was more inline with the actual situation.

Oh, and can you hunt wolf in Alaska and/or Canada.

[1911Tuner]

Though anything is possible, it doesn't sound much like wolf behavior based on what limited studying that I've done.(Wolves are fascinating, and I read everything that I can find on'em.) Wolves tend to be opportunistic feeders and will gorge on a kill or carrion likely because they instinctively know that there may not be another for a long time. Coyotes, however, have been known to kill apparently for the sport without taking so much as a mouthful.

[M.E.Eldridge]

Though anything is possible, it doesn't sound much like wolf behavior based on what limited studying that I've done.(Wolves are fascinating, and I read everything that I can find on'em.) Wolves tend to be opportunistic feeders and will gorge on a kill or carrion likely because they instinctively know that there may not be another for a long time. Coyotes, however, have been known to kill apparently for the sport without taking so much as a mouthful.

That's what I assumed, but their were also multiple letters from trappers and wildlife management field officers concuring with that the wolfs were killing far more than the eat. However I don't live near wolves, so my assumtions are a moot point. I did once witnessed coyotes take down a doe,though as I was heading out to my stand one bow season. I passed the carcass later returning home and it had only been picked at.

[1911Tuner]

Interesting to say the least. I've developed a theory on this. Might make sense...Might not. First, a story.

Coyotes often exhibit this sport killing behavior...and now we hear of wolves possibly doing the same thing. We know that Coyotes are probably the most adaptable predators presently sucking air on the planet. They've taken the encroachment on their domain in stride...adapted...and now move freely among even heavily populated areas as though they were neighborhood dogs.

Wolves, on the other hand, have typically been very careful to avoid these areas, and are extremely wary of people. I've been privleged to observe a
pair of wolves...or rather, became aware of them observing me...during a
camping/hiking trip. They moved parallel to me....stopped when I stopped, and moved when I moved. They seemed to be keenly interested in what I was doing, but were careful to maintain their distance. When they realized that I had spotted them, they vanished...only to reappear a while later in a different spot. They never gave indication that they were anything but curious.

I also once encountered...from what I could determine...a pack of five Coyotes that moved to encircle me...and gradually tightened the circle
until I fired a few rounds in their general direction...and they vanished immediately, even though i didn't come even close to hitting one. They seemed to be fully aware of what the gunfire meant. The whole time...after I became aware of their presence, I felt like they were stalking and looking for an opening. I never got that feeling from the wolves.

Now for the theory.

Could it be that wolves are beginning to exhibit Coyote behavior as a way of adapting to our increasing spread into their territory...the same as Coyotes did.

Is it nothing more than an evolutional step that the Coyotes have already made? Are wolves...in a natural survival evolvement...becoming Coyotes?
Is THIS the reason that they're behaving more like Coyotes and less like wolves?

If this is the case...it's not a good thing...most wolf species being not only larger and more powerful than coyotes, but also more geared to pack hunting.
Coyotes are well able to hunt alone, and often do...while wolves generally
remain in packs for life.

How does a 20-member pack of Gray Wolves living in your general vicinity sound? Scary. I love the beasties and wish them well...but I'd like to keep my distance if it's all the same to them. The Coyotes that occasionally move through the area are quite enough for me, thanks.

[tom barthel]

wolves are great. Ask any sheep rancher. Wolves move in, deer population drops. Same in elk country. People forget wolves were killed off for a reason. I'm sure there are few ranchers in Alaska. Why not release them in your back yard?:(

[1911Tuner]

wolves are great. Ask any sheep rancher. Wolves move in, deer population drops. Same in elk country. People forget wolves were killed off for a reason. I'm sure there are few ranchers in Alaska. Why not release them in your back yard?:(

Hi Tom, and welcome aboard.

No arguing that wolves are a nuisance and even potentially dangerous for ranchers and sheepherders. We're not debating those points...only trying to
figure out if their behavior is changing...and if so...why.

If you're in an area where you're in close proximity to wolf packs, and you've noticed any of these things, please chime in.

[Cosmoline]

I've never seen direct evidence of this, though I've heard about it. I suspect bears and the weather are just as much to blame for the low moose numbers in certain GMU's. Generally predators avoid having to expend the massive energy needed to take down large animals for fun. Though in a very rich environment you might find them eating only the best organs and leaving most of the bone an muscle for others. A 20-strong pack is very unlikely to be so massively overfed, though. A lot of those wolves are going to be hungry, even if the alpha pair aren't. What this pilot might have been seeing was simply the pack leaving an injured moose to die before returning to eat it. Contrary to popular imagination, full grown healthy adult moose are more than a match for a wolf pack and can kill their attackers very easily. The wolves, like the bear, tend to target sick moose and calves. It's the predation of calves that can have a huge impact on the moose population. In icy warm winters, the cows don't have the mobility to protect their offspring as well and may lose all of them not just the spare.

The only time I've seen evidence of wolf pack "murder" of animals is when they suddenly run into domesticated animals who don't have the sense to fight or the ability to run away. The wolves just unleash on them and may kill many more than they need to because it's like taking candy from a babe. Such animals are not on the wolves' natural menu and really have no more business in wild land than a malibu hippy. They'll just stand there and get ate.

[carebear]

Tuner,

That theory sounds ok for the States but we get the same reports up here and there's thousands of wolves who have only occasionally glimpsed a human, if ever. Given that such reports IIRC go back to the first part of the century, well before human intrusion except as hunters/trappers was a factor, I can't see it as particularly habitat based.

Can't recall the cite but I think many of the game (versus big dumb cow) wolf slaughters occur after freak storms and such when the moose/elk/deer/what-have-you are relatively immobilized and wearied by deep, soft snow.

Same principle we see in sharks and humans as well, a predator gets its blood up with so many easy victims around and kills for the joy of the killing or, to do less personification, in an instinctual attempt to get as much food as possible right now.

Keep in mind (also IIRC) much of the "friendly wolf" stuff was recent, conscious, deliberate propaganda designed at quickly changing peoples' attitudes before the wolves were all killed off for good. A conspiracy by professional biologists and wolf-philes to prevent a greater ecological harm.

Chimps, dolphins, elephants... To stop the slaughter and/or make Joe Average care, wild animals and their ways were suger-coated. Only now that the "killing them is bad" has set in solid are we getting the full picture from our wildlife films and such, now realizing what the guy in the woods knew all along.

Unfortunately, guys like the "Grizzly Man" didn't get or didn't believe the memo.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Perusing through my Fur-Fish-Game back issues, I saw a debate emerging back and forth between biologist types and bush pilots/trappers about wolf predation in Alaska. The bush pilot claimed to have flown over a traveling wolf pack of about 20 members as it went along its way and he noticed many uneaten fresh moose(and other animal) kills. Biologist charges that this is untrue and illogical. Since quite a few THR'ers seem to live in Alaska and seem quite aware of such matters, I was wondering which opinion was more inline with the actual situation.

Oh, and can you hunt wolf in Alaska and/or Canada.

I go to Alaska a few times a year and no cases like that have even been confirmed. They are very contrary to wolf behavior. In fact all studies in america have shown that wolves cause no significant loss of life since the number of animals lost to wolves was negligibly higher than the ones that would have been lost to age or illness anyway. Alaska has had alot of problems with false reports like this in the past from sporting groups that want to be able to increase what they can kill and how many and will use any means necessary to demonize the animals.

[carebear]

You're referring to no wild ungulate "slaughters" being documented right?

[PlayboyPenguin]

You're referring to no wild ungulate "slaughters" being documented right?
Hey, it is carebear again. I love that name...it is so cuddly for a gun board. Did you see the pic you inspired me to draw yesterday. i was at work and only had a sharpy marker so it is pretty crudely draw but I did manage to take a pic and put it into my laptop and add some color which helped. I noticed I forgot to draw the left holster though.:(

[carebear]

Yeah, I caught it over there. I like it.

The left one must be the hideout gun.

[forquidder]

If anyone is interested in reading a excellent book on wolves and wolf behavior get "Alaskas Wolf Man" by Jeff Reardon. (Amazon has it online)
The subject of the book was a Government Hunter back in the day and it gives the best insight into wolf behavior of any book I have ever read (wholesale slaughter included).
The subect of the book was one tough SOB and this book reads like White Fang or one of the other far north classics.
So put an end to all your theories and speculations.
Playboy, you especially need to read this book. :p

[PlayboyPenguin]

Yeah, I caught it over there. I like it.

The left one must be the hideout gun.

Oh, I sure hope not...considering the size of the gun and the fact he is not wearing any clothes I would hate to think where he was hiding it...ouch.:D

[carebear]

Tucked in the belt.

(I hope)

[PlayboyPenguin]

If anyone is interested in reading a excellent book on wolves and wolf behavior get "Alaskas Wolf Man" by Jeff Reardon. (Amazon has it online)
The subject of the book was a Government Hunter back in the day and it gives the best insight into wolf behavior of any book I have ever read (wholesale slaughter included).
The subect of the book was one tough SOB and this book reads like White Fang or one of the other far north classics.
So put an end to all your theories and speculations.
Playboy, you especially need to read this book. :p
Oh, I loved "White Fang" as a child...there was also another "dog goes feral" type of book that I just cannot remember the name of that I also loved. They were right up there with "Where the Red Fern Grows" as far as my favorite books go. Only "Watership Down" surpassed them as my all time faves at the time. As far as the effects of reintroduction of wolves into the wild, i have never seen a single negative study. Maybe someone could find some and post what their conclussions are...it is not very gun related but might be interesting.

[TequilaMockingbird]

Did you see the pic you inspired me to draw yesterday.

Protect your right to arm bears! :neener:

[PlayboyPenguin]

Protect your right to arm bears! :neener:

Maybe that was what the founding fathers meant all along and a simple typo caused all this debate.:D

[carebear]

"The Call of the Wild" was London's other half-wild dog book. "As you love me Buck." "Red Fern" made me cry like "Old Yeller".

As far as wolves go, I'm in favor of reintroducing predators and am not in favor of killing them for no reason. But I am in favor of responsible game management.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060112/IDOUT/601120353/1059

Basically, in Idaho, reintroduction has succeeded quite well. Looks like 35 wolves in '95 became hundreds today and they are now having a discernable effect on cow elk numbers. The important thing is, there's plenty of them (wolves) and the state is being careful to observe their culling effort to make sure it makes a real difference so they can stop if it is a waste of time. The wolf huggers of course assume they know the answer already and are crying genocide.

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=15048

This article talks about a 9 wolf pack killing 70 sheep in a single night.

That's why I asked about which wolf slaughters weren't documented, cause domesticated animal occurences certainly are and wild herbivores as well do get killed in large numbers and not preyed on as well. That isn't myth.

Although, it would take more effort than I'm willing to put out to find solid scientific examples amidst all the idiotic, emotional and ignorent hand-wringing about "wolves being hunted to extinction in Alaska" Google brings me. :rolleyes:

[middy]

We know that Coyotes are probably the most adaptable predators presently sucking air on the planet.
<Glances at own opposable thumbs and Mossberg 500A> Hmmm... you may want to qualify that statement, Tuner. ;)

[1911Tuner]

<Glances at own opposable thumbs and Mossberg 500A> Hmmm... you may want to qualify that statement, Tuner. ;)


Okay okay! The most adaptable 4-legged predators presently sucking air...
but I'll tell ya what. Go live in a wilderness on your own...with no Mossberg and nothing to feed you except your wits and what you can cobble up to hunt/fight/forage with...and my money goes on the "yote for long-term survival.:p

[birddog]

Tuner, I like your theory.

I've no experience with wolves, but lots of experience with coyotes. Killed a couple that now adorn my den, watched many others from hunting stands and working the very industry-infested areas of Niagara Falls where I work. I've had several in my back yard. They are adaptable and amazing hunters. My only beef with the above statements by other posters are the second-hand accounts of coyotes wasting animals for fun & not eating them. Most of my up-close experience with coyotes has shown me repeatedly how they will strip a deer down to nothing but fur and bone within hours of killing / discovering it. I question the wanton-waste accounts. I would think that, being a big animal, that the act of killing and not eating would go against their genetic programming. It sure doesn't serve any purpose. I wonder if these "killed for fun" sheep or deer were the victims of feral dogs, which have been documented to do just that due to their somewhat "confused" idea of their place in an ecosystem.

[Infidel]

Birddog, I'm with you in everything that you said. I have had the pleasure of watching wolves, but only for a few days, and only from a distance, as they went about their business. I have also had the pleasure of extended talks with professionals whose business is observing wolves in the wild full time, and they tell a much different story than the rabid anti-wolf contingent.

Your point about feral dog packs is particularly well-taken, and that behaviour among feral dog packs, including packs formed by well-behaved domestic dogs allowed to run free at night, is well-documented.

I've always been amazed at the hysterical fear that some people have of wolves.

[middy]

Okay okay! The most adaptable 4-legged predators presently sucking air...
but I'll tell ya what. Go live in a wilderness on your own...with no Mossberg and nothing to feed you except your wits and what you can cobble up to hunt/fight/forage with...and my money goes on the "yote for long-term survival.:p
Touché

[1911Tuner]

Quotes:

>I wonder if these "killed for fun" sheep or deer were the victims of feral dogs, which have been documented to do just that due to their somewhat "confused" idea of their place in an ecosystem.<

Very possible..and also would like to point out that...if the carcasses that were ignored by the wolves were possibly marked or fouled by another predator, the wolves may have passed it over because of that.
*******************


>Your point about feral dog packs is particularly well-taken, and that behaviour among feral dog packs, including packs formed by well-behaved domestic dogs allowed to run free at night, is well-documented.<

Having been involved in the eradication of a feral dog pack some years ago, I can testify to how dangerous they really are. They have no instinctive nor learned fear of man, and absolutely will kill for just the hell of it. Unless sick or starving, wolves tend to keep their distance from man adamantly. Sheep?
Well...sheep and cattle are prey. Wolves are predators. They hunt other animals for a living. Although they do cost ranchers and others who breed these types of animals for THEIR living, the wolves aren't acting on a conscious desire to wreck the economy. They're just being wolves, and wolves in direct competition with other predators on the food chain...namely man. That's the way it's always worked. They act...we counter. They figure out another way to get to the food...and on and on. The only way to end the game is to eradicate the enemy...and although we don't know exactly how, it would eventually lead to a bad situation. Fre-roaming predators are here for a reason as part of nature's system of checks and balances. Doing away with one leads to a badly unbalanced situation sooner or later. Same goes for coyotes.
******************

I've always been amazed at the hysterical fear that some people have of wolves.

Me too. I saw a documentary several years ago in which a 4 year-old girl was
inside a sizeable pen with several wolves. The wolves maintained a consistent distance from her at all times. Curious...but cautious. She would advance toward them and they'd back off. She'd walk away and they'd follow, stopping whenever she did. When the child would run toward the pack, they'd scatter and retreat to the farthest point that the enclosure would allow, and observe.

I'd much rather be in the boonies in close proximity to a pack of wolves than with a pack of feral dogs.

[RyanM]

It may be that the wolves in Alaska are interbreeding with coyotes. That's what happened in the northeast. No more wolves or coyotes around here anymore, just coyotewolves (usually called coyotes, though). From what I understand, coyotewolves are about halfway in between coyote and wolf in build and appearance, but much closer to yotes in behavior. And apparently, they're too small to make much of a dent in the deer population, they mostly only kill a handful of fawns each year. May be that some of the wolf packs there have just enough coyote blood in 'em to go around killing animals for sport, but not so much that they get too small to hunt larger animals.

[MD_Willington]

I've always been amazed at the hysterical fear that some people have of wolves.

Me too. I saw a documentary several years ago in which a 4 year-old girl was
inside a sizeable pen with several wolves. The wolves maintained a consistent distance from her at all times. Curious...but cautious. She would advance toward them and they'd back off. She'd walk away and they'd follow, stopping whenever she did. When the child would run toward the pack, they'd scatter and retreat to the farthest point that the enclosure would allow, and observe.

I'd much rather be in the boonies in close proximity to a pack of wolves than with a pack of feral dogs.

I have been in a couple of situations like that:

One was renovating a house, I was in the yard when I saw something running around and figured it was a few dogs, nope they were wolves, curious little buggers too, they were mamma & some pups, they kept their distance for a while, they were always watching what I was doing, after being there for a while the pups began to get into everything, they would take things and play cat and mouse with me, eventually mamma wolf even came up to me while I was carrying a table saw rubbed her nose on my hand and took a hanky out of my pocked... It was kind of weird but we pretty much stayed out of each others way.

Another time I was working in Alberta for a Geo Tech company (http://www.westerngeco.com/ Slumberger, Geco-Prakla crew 1263) a group of us were on a frozen lake running dataline and setting geo-phones, about a dozen of us & a pack of Black wolves, same area as the black wolves they took from Alberta to Yellowstone, ran parallel to us along the tree line for most of the evening, they just kept their distance and watched. The next day we found a swamp donkey they had finished off, picked it clean.

MD

[M.E.Eldridge]

Tuner, I like your theory.

I've no experience with wolves, but lots of experience with coyotes. Killed a couple that now adorn my den, watched many others from hunting stands and working the very industry-infested areas of Niagara Falls where I work. I've had several in my back yard. They are adaptable and amazing hunters. My only beef with the above statements by other posters are the second-hand accounts of coyotes wasting animals for fun & not eating them. Most of my up-close experience with coyotes has shown me repeatedly how they will strip a deer down to nothing but fur and bone within hours of killing / discovering it. I question the wanton-waste accounts. I would think that, being a big animal, that the act of killing and not eating would go against their genetic programming. It sure doesn't serve any purpose. I wonder if these "killed for fun" sheep or deer were the victims of feral dogs, which have been documented to do just that due to their somewhat "confused" idea of their place in an ecosystem.

The animals I saw kill that doe were either coyotes or possibley coy dogs and thats it. I've killed enough to recognize them. It is very possible that they saw or more likely scented me after I left and decided to run off though.

[Lucky]

...Genetic programming... ...animals attack only to eat... http://www.ebaumsworld.com/monkeyvstiger.html

[ALASKACAJUN]

It may be that the wolves in Alaska are interbreeding with coyotes. That's what happened in the northeast. No more wolves or coyotes around here anymore, just coyotewolves (usually called coyotes, though). From what I understand, coyotewolves are about halfway in between coyote and wolf in build and appearance, but much closer to yotes in behavior. And apparently, they're too small to make much of a dent in the deer population, they mostly only kill a handful of fawns each year. May be that some of the wolf packs there have just enough coyote blood in 'em to go around killing animals for sport, but not so much that they get too small to hunt larger animals.

Sorry man, the only problem with that statement is that you never see (in Alaska) coyotes in a wolf's territory due to the fact that wolves will kill and eat them! I have coyote/wolf hunted in Alaska for 8 years, if you see coyote sign in the wild you will not see wolf sign.... At least I haven't! I personally don't dislike wolves but know that their numbers need to be kept in check! I have moose hunted in areas that should support a healthy moose population and did not see one moose track! But did discover quite a few kill sites and wolf sign in the area. I also trap so thats where we go to trap wolves and do pretty good. Consiquently, when we find good moose sign you don't usually see too much wolf sign....

Jim Reardon's book about Frank Glaser (Alaska Wolf Man) was very true to what I've experienced, so I know it wasn't something made up by a "arm chair" outdoorsman! Frank states that he had witnessed wolves kill caribou and leave them on the ground with only the tongue eatin' out. There are many accounts in the book that are similar to that account! Frank lived alone in the Alaskan bush for decades, and kept a diary that Mr. Reardon for the most part wrote the book with. He also interviewed Frank. If you want to read something that gives you a very true account of Alaskan wolves I challenge you to read that book!

I read the article about the pilot witnessing the moose kill and 20 wolves leaving it uneatin', and would like to give my opinion.... I did not see it happen so in that particular case can not say if it did or didn't happen! But I have found very nice caribou bulls that were winter kills and had wolf sign around them, which knocks the "sick and weak" theory out of the water.... So in that regard I would say anything is possible. And a wolf pack killing a helpless moose stuck in deep snow and not eating it is not surprising to me!

I tell ya'll what, if you want to do a little wolf research, I'll put the next couple I catch on the trapline into a box and ship 'em to you.... Who wants a few wolves? :neener:

- Clint

[Harve Curry]

Hmm, wolves kill grad student in Canada and eat him, but maybe the wolves just strolled by didn't kill him, but found him ready to eat, like an MRE.:)

Wolves ran down a herd of elk in Wyoming, got them heat exhuasted and snow bound. All dead and none got ate. (Range Magazine)

Wolves killed 200 colts out of 300 foal crop in China. Just saw that on the Discovery Channel. Didn't eat them all either, just had fun chasing them around and nibbling here and there, tastey.:rolleyes:

Wolves killed and ate a dairy cow about 35 miles from here, within 100 yards of the house. In plain bold sight with pictures and authorities routinely question the validity of the report.:scrutiny: Did the wolves really kill it or just stroll by and found an MRE ??

Annual migration of elk hunts in southern Montana have been put off because of wolf depredation in Yellowstone. But that doesn't make much news.
Yellowstone elk and bison populations are way down. Wolves are up, go figure.

Killed a hunters horse tied to his horse trailer in Idaho a few years ago. Ran the second horse off.

Kill sheep pretty regular in Idaho, Montana. They eat them from the guts forward while they're still alive and screaming. Same with elk & cattle calves. Hores colts, deer, you name it.

But go ahead and believe the tree hugger animal before people rights media types. You know the same media and goverment who wants to take away your guns and hunting.
Disregard everything your grandfathers did, they're ways are old, obsolete, and besides they didn't know anybetter then. We are much more enlightened informed now.:rolleyes:
Hasn't anyone here ever seen a pack of domestic dogs go wild, feral, attack others animals. It's fun for them. Coyotes and wolves are real similar in that way. They enjoy chasing and killing. It's simple. Why is that so hard to understand. Instead you gotta believe some official over educated idiot:barf: that wolves are warm, fuzzy, nibble, and don't gulp they're food..

[Byron Quick]

Go live in a wilderness on your own...with no Mossberg and nothing to feed you except your wits and what you can cobble up to hunt/fight/forage with...and my money goes on the "yote for long-term survival.

Tuner, you might have a point with me or the other members on this board. BUT, let's put some Kalahari tribesmen down naked, unarmed, and without tools in an ecosystem with nothing to eat but coyotes and the coyotes have nothing to eat but Kalahari tribesmen. The tribesmen will make the tools to make the weapons.
My money will be on the Bushmen.

I have no experience with wolves. I have seen coyotes leave a kill. For a couple of days, maybe. But, I've always seen coyotes eat that kill by and by. And anything else that's lying around dead or can be caught.

Mr. Curry, I don't necessarily believe the tree hugger types. On the other hand, I don't necessarily accept the beliefs of my ancestors either. Some of those cats thought the earth was flat and other idiocies. I prefer data from objective sources. And I rank the trustworthiness of those sources, both the treehuggers and the ranchers. Bias is bias no matter what its source or what is the primary motivation.

I've seen packs of non-feral dogs kill and leave it. Usually packs of rural dogs that will run something down, kill it, and then go home to eat their regular food. The woods are pretty abundant with wildlife in this area but packs of feral dogs don't seem to fare that well. The ones I've seen usually have ribs showing very prominently. They're real interested in eating any thing they kill around here. The vast majority of feral dogs I have seen were starving and diseased.

[1911Tuner]

Byron sez:

>Tuner, you might have a point with me or the other members on this board. BUT, let's put some Kalahari tribesmen down in an ecosystem with nothing to eat but coyotes and the coyotes have nothing to eat but Kalahari tribesmen.
My money will be on the Bushmen.<
****************************

Touche'! But...ya gotta admit that the Austrailian Aborigine and the bushmen of the Kalahari are pretty much a breed unto themselves...:p

Harve...No fuzzy tree-hugger here. It appears that the behavior of wolves is undergoing a change...and not for the better. Our encroachment...which is a result of the expanding population and
natural order that goes along with being a successful predator...has to figure into that occurrence on some level. Maybe it's time to encourage a few limited, closely controlled hunting seasons to not only re-instill their fear of all things human...but to "cull the herd" a bit.

[Harve Curry]

Byron sez:
Our encroachment...which is a result of the expanding population and
natural order that goes along with being a successful predator...has to figure into that occurrence on some level. Maybe it's time to encourage a few limited, closely controlled hunting seasons to not only re-instill their fear of all things human...but to "cull the herd" a bit.

The Endangered Species Act of 1968 protects wolves in the lower 48 states.
You cannot "cull" or shoot a wolf. Authorities would come down on you harder then if you wacked grandma moses. There is a very active wolf reintroduction program going on . It cost the American taxpayers about $1 million per wolf to reintroduce one into the wild. They are cared for, vacinated,microchipped, and have transmitter collars. Hundreds of federal and state employees are involved. At the same time we have soldiers and veterans who don't always get what they need. Crime, drugs, and homeless goes unabated.


Mr. Quick,
The world being flat is a bit of a stretch don't you think. Besides my ancestors didn't think so, they defied they're contemporaries and sailed across the ocean. We're talking about facts of history within the last 35 to 100 years. If history and facts are bias then so be it.

[1911Tuner]

Harve, I'm not arguing that wolves can be a problem in some places, and I'm not suggesting that more money should be spent on reintroduction programs...but there's a need for a limited population of large predators
in most areas in order to keep the game herds in check. Otherwise, you have overpopulation/starvation, genetic problems due to inbreeding, and
in some areas...such as this one...the deer are getting so thick that they've become a constant danger on the highways...right in the middle of heavily populated areas. The NC Fish and Game people are literally begging folks to hunt deer. I know of one game warden who pretty much turned a blind eye to spotlighting one year. They were breeding faster than legal hunting could balance out.

Ever hear of a little affliction called "Lyme Disease"? Carried by deer ticks. Talk to somebody who deals with it on a daily basis and talk about eradicating the mid-range predators.

Coyotes and Foxes too, have a niche. Lose those and the rabbit population
explodes. With rabbits comes Tularemia...a nasty little disease that kills people in a particularly unpleasant manner. Squirrels and Raccoons too, can carry and spread their own brand of awful unless they're held to a reasonable level.

These predator reintroduction programs aren't just another product of the
blissninnies and the tree-huggers. It's largely a joint effort by the Wildlife Commission and state Fish and Game agencies because there's a need for the predators in certain areas. The fact that the environmentalist whackos have jumped on the bandwagon is incidental.

[Harve Curry]

1911,
With all due respect, this ain't N.Carolina, or any other eastern state.
We do not have the deer or elk populations you have. Eastern deer and elk hunters are astounded by how much western country you can glass in a day and not see a soul, 4 or 2 legged. So the problem is finding a legal deer or elk to shoot, not how many you can shoot.
Hunters fill the niche out here just fine as The Large Predator.
The grey wolf wasn't really endangered, they just had been eradicated from this area and for good reasons. The Mexican grey is the same wolf as up north, just his enviroment and food source makes him smaller. The goverment and special interest groups are shoving this down our throats, they have unlimited funding and Hollywood to back them up. They're even teaching it to your kids in school.

[1911Tuner]

Understood, Harve. I know that they're a huge problem in some areas...which is why a controlled season might be a good idea. I'm all for wildlife conservation, and that includes forced control of certain species to prevent being overrun.

More than that...Wolves and other large predators are dangerous. When they get too accustomed to us by feeding on livestock and overhunting of
game populations, it becomes a problem that needs to be kept in check. Wolves have learned not to fear us in the last 50 years or so...and they need to.

I love all wildlife...Wolves included...but for the right reasons. I don't hunt any more...largely a personal choice that came with age...but if the Wolf population became a problem here...and a season was allowed...I'd go in a minute.

Meanwhile...for the folks who do have a steadily increasing problem with wolves...Shoot, Scoot, and Shut Up still works. Long-range rifles, anyone?:cool:

[PlayboyPenguin]

Hmm, wolves kill grad student in Canada and eat him, but maybe the wolves just strolled by didn't kill him, but found him ready to eat, like an MRE.:)

Wolves ran down a herd of elk in Wyoming, got them heat exhuasted and snow bound. All dead and none got ate. (Range Magazine)

Wolves killed 200 colts out of 300 foal crop in China. Just saw that on the Discovery Channel. Didn't eat them all either, just had fun chasing them around and nibbling here and there, tastey.:rolleyes:

Wolves killed and ate a dairy cow about 35 miles from here, within 100 yards of the house. In plain bold sight with pictures and authorities routinely question the validity of the report.:scrutiny: Did the wolves really kill it or just stroll by and found an MRE ??

Annual migration of elk hunts in southern Montana have been put off because of wolf depredation in Yellowstone. But that doesn't make much news.
Yellowstone elk and bison populations are way down. Wolves are up, go figure.

Killed a hunters horse tied to his horse trailer in Idaho a few years ago. Ran the second horse off.

Kill sheep pretty regular in Idaho, Montana. They eat them from the guts forward while they're still alive and screaming. Same with elk & cattle calves. Hores colts, deer, you name it.

But go ahead and believe the tree hugger animal before people rights media types. You know the same media and goverment who wants to take away your guns and hunting.
Disregard everything your grandfathers did, they're ways are old, obsolete, and besides they didn't know anybetter then. We are much more enlightened informed now.:rolleyes:
Hasn't anyone here ever seen a pack of domestic dogs go wild, feral, attack others animals. It's fun for them. Coyotes and wolves are real similar in that way. They enjoy chasing and killing. It's simple. Why is that so hard to understand. Instead you gotta believe some official over educated idiot:barf: that wolves are warm, fuzzy, nibble, and don't gulp they're food..
Can you post links to this information. The only thing I was able to find was the Discovery channel one and there is alot of skeptasism about that claim made in that feature since there was no actual proof according to the producer.

[PlayboyPenguin]

I was able to find something about the guy in canada. He was found dead with wolf prints around his body. However all the stories are very clear that the cause of death had not been determined and that an autopsy/investigation was ongoing. The other thing was that the only places I can find still carrying this story are hunting magazines. Two major news sources that were carrying it have removed it from their sites. Which is what they usually do if they pick up a story from a wire feed that later cannot be varified or the facts change drastically to where the original story becomes misleading. This happened in Nov. I think an autopsy would have been complete by now. If someone could find the conclusions and post it that would be great.

[strangeone]

We have been living with the expensive "reintroduced" wolves in Wyoming for some years now.It hasn't changed the average persons life style much except the ranchers that make their living in the same area the wolves roam.Notice I said make their" LIVING" .The other ranchers are Hobbie ranchers for lack of another word,having made their millions elswhere,hollywood,pro sports,inheritance ect.The Hobbie ranchers seem to love the wolves and all they bring with them.The make your living off your livestock ranchers respect the wolves but would love to be allowed to take care of their own problems when they arise, without big brother screwing around where they are not suppose to be.

Local hunters have noticed a great decline in deer and elk numbers corresponding to the wolf numbers.Coyote population in an wolf area is pretty much none existant ,wolves will kill all other canines they run across,this includes fluffy,fido and spike.

I personally have only seen two wolves in the wild and it was a very positive thing for me.One of them was stalking and eating a new born fawn antelope.

Of the first hand stories I've heard only one guy felt that his well-being was in jeopardy,he was bow hunting ,had no bang bangs with him"Law abiding guy"Wolves circled around ,snapped and growled for awhile then backed off ,proceeded to follow him back to his vehicle,where he changed his shorts and went home.Gittin out of hand with this post .sorry,just don,t ask about reintroduced GRIZZLYs.

[carebear]

http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/techb13p2.pdf

http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/techb13p3.pdf

A passle of documented attacks.

Yes, most (not all) involve wolves that had been habituated by human feeding and a lack of legal hunting or harassment (no "fear humans" training).

Some involve wolves apparently aggressing dogs with the humans (still not seeing the humans as a threat).

Some are out and out non-provoked predatory behavior on human children.

In many cases the wolves are immature and therefore less experienced with humans.

All these caveats agreed upon, to say "wolves are our harmless forest brothers" is still tripe of the first order. Absent a continual education of wolves that humans are indeed a threat (not just a large-ish competitor) these kind of encounters will continue, if not grow.

[Byron Quick]

Tuner,

A couple of things that concern me about reintroduction programs haven't been mentioned.

The stated reason for cessation of the reintroduction of the red wolf to the Smoky Mountains,i.e., the local ecosystem can't support them.

Georgia DNR has claimed the same to scotch reintroduction of elk in the North Georgia mountains.

I don't know enough about wolves to evaluate the the first claim. The Georgia DNR claim about the elk? I'm very skeptical about that claim. That area is certainly able to provide for many whitetail deer. I know of no environmental limiting factors for elk that wouldn't also affect whitetails. I think there's a hidden agenda of some type going on with DNR.

[1911Tuner]

Hi Byron,

Haven't heard about them stopping the reintroduction there. If it won't support them, then they should be thinned out. They seem to be doing okay form Wake County to the Uwharries...but time will tell. No domestic pets and very little livestock loss has been attributed to the Red Wolves, but that may change as their numbers increase. Might be due to the plentiful Whitetail herd, because they've been spotted in the Uwharries, and there's a LOT of
farm stock for'em to pick through around there.

[akodo]

here in MN we got a whole pile of wolves. it will be interesting when they start moving into the suburbs, as both groups are growing fast toward eachother. Most suburbans are alreays terrified of coyoties, especially now that the animal control places will tell you when you call in asking if anyone turned in your missing pet that the coyotes probably ate it.

Wolves are downing livestock, and getting farmers pissed. However, the laws are written in such a way that you have to have absoulte proof it was wolves who killed and ate the animal. We are talking finding hairs on the animal to allow DNA testing to prove it was a wolf and not a large dog.

Yes, feral dogs (and sometimes not feral, pet dogs, will join in and form a pack and go cause trouble with livestock) do exist, but 20 years ago when the wolf numbers were MUCH less, livestock weren't being pulled down by feral dog packs at even 10% this rate. The other is that wolves aren't going to tollerate feral dogs in their area. You either have wolves, or you have feral dogs, you won't have both for long.

[Heraclid]

Well, I've been in on these types of wolf threads before in other places. I have decided I will pretty much just sit back and watch this one.

But speaking of the Uwharries, I did have a lot of fun in the Uwharrie National Forest doing some off-roading on, among others, a trail called Wolf's Den. :-)

[Harve Curry]

http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=1101654

The above link is a HighRoad thread on wolves. Also do a wolf or wolves search in the hunting section of this forum.

[MinScout]

I think it's foolish to hate something that behaves instinctively. If a wolf pack indiscriminately kills several moose at a time, that's just something wolves do. We can't apply human ethics and responibility to wild animals. Further, those dead moose will provide food for bears, foxes, ravens, etc.
Reintroducing wolves where they've been absent for generations might be a mistake. The prey species has'nt learned to deal with the presence of large numbers of powerful predators, which I think is why we see ungulate numbers dropping where wolves were suddenly turned loose. Perhaps if wolves were allowed to migrate naturally to an area over a period of time, we might see fewer dramatic losses in prey animals. Here in Minnesota, we have a large and growing native wolf population and probably more deer than we've ever had, as well. I think the deer have learned to adapt to them to some extent.

[dillonuser]

Birddog, I'm with you in everything that you said. I have had the pleasure of watching wolves, but only for a few days, and only from a distance, as they went about their business. I have also had the pleasure of extended talks with professionals whose business is observing wolves in the wild full time, and they tell a much different story than the rabid anti-wolf contingent.

Your point about feral dog packs is particularly well-taken, and that behaviour among feral dog packs, including packs formed by well-behaved domestic dogs allowed to run free at night, is well-documented.

I've always been amazed at the hysterical fear that some people have of wolves.

I agree with you 100%. I have also had direct talks and correspondence with professionals. Their statements are 180 degrees off from the,as you say "the rabid anti-wolf contingent".

[Harve Curry]

I've talk to the "professionals" also. They have an agenda, are usually paid by goverment or some other NGO entity, so they get paid whether or not they produce anything of use, product, or service in their daily lives.

It was the famed outdoorsman Aldo Leopold who shot one of the last wolves near the Arizona - New Mexico border about 70 years ago. He wrote he watched as the green light went out of his eyes.:cool: He knew that wolves and man couldn't live close together. He's probably rolling in his grave because 3 wolves have recently been released in the Aldo Leopold Wilderness.(which is not big enough compared to Alaska or Canada.)
Now he's the poster boy so to speak, for the anti-hunting, anti-ranching, and anti-American enviromentals, who migrate out of cities and dictate that they know better:barf: .

[PlayboyPenguin]

I've talk to the "professionals" also. They have an agenda, are usually paid by goverment or some other NGO entity, so they get paid whether or not they produce anything of use, product, or service in their daily lives.

It was the famed outdoorsman Aldo Leopold who shot one of the last wolves near the Arizona - New Mexico border about 70 years ago. He wrote he watched as the green light went out of his eyes.:cool: He knew that wolves and man couldn't live close together. He's probably rolling in his grave because 3 wolves have recently been released in the Aldo Leopold Wilderness.(which is not big enough compared to Alaska or Canada.)
Now he's the poster boy so to speak, for the anti-hunting, anti-ranching, and anti-American enviromentals, who migrate out of cities and dictate that they know better:barf: .

Your retoric and use of defaning stereotypes along with you lack of any tangible evidence makes your argument pretty weak. Seems to me like you have an agenda. How in the world would you equate someone trying to protect the enviroment and wildlife with being anti-american? What nonsense...

[1911Tuner]

Got word about an hour ago that in the area that I moved from...A neighbor who owns a magnificent Husky/German Shepherd mix tangled with four coyotes just before sunrise today. He killed all four, but was badly chewed up...and his owner had let his rabies vaccination lapse. Animal control took the coyotes for testing and one came back positive for rabies. "Bear" had to be put down.

This occurred in a fairly well-populated area. I'd spotted a coyote here and there before I moved, but they were skittish, and wouldn't stand still for long once they realized that they'd been seen. Looks like they're getting bolder. Keep your pets' vaccinations up to date in areas that Coyotes have been seen. Bear could have survived his injuries had he been properly vaccinated.
Instead, this great dog had to die.

[Infidel]

...., this great dog had to die.
Aw, man, that sucks.

[Infidel]

.... What nonsense...
+1

[Ankeny]

As far as wolves go, I'm in favor of reintroducing predators and am not in favor of killing them for no reason. But I am in favor of responsible game management.

And that's the frustrating part of the equation. What constitutes responsible game management? I spend a lot of time in the areas now populated by wolves. The wolves have taken the place of hunters, and in many areas, the elk herds are below management objectives. That is, there are fewer elk (and deer) than the carrying capacity of the land can support. The cost is substantial to outfitters, guides, and the guy at the Mini-Mart who sells munchies to hunters. Fewer recreational opportunities have an economic effect, and that can not be denied.

As for wolves chasing elk off of feed grounds resulting in large scale starvation, well that's a matter of public record. Several years back there were pleas for help in area newspapers for people with snowmachines to help relocate elk and/or feed them up the Gros Venture River. In the end, the elk herd took it in the shorts. In a way, it's a shame, but many folks are ignorant of the exact toll, others just don't care.

FWIW, wolves are now raising hell with the herd at Green River Lake. Snow bound elk are easy picking for the wolves. Unfotunately, the mortality rate of elk will far exceed the number of elk that are eaten. I suppose the anti-hunting crowd couldn't be more pleased.

[carebear]

Ankeny,

In that particular case, if the wolf population is healthy enough to degrade game numbers below supportable hunting levels, you hunt the wolves to keep their numbers at a level where elk hunters, elk and wolves can coexist. If, due to territory or habitat concerns, that means in the end there's no room for all three, the wolves are going to get the short end of the stick. Which is sad, but in general human uses must come first.

Reintroduction of large predators is not an immutable law, it's a "good thing (tm)" if it can be made to work.

If we've patchworked the available habitat into unuseability, and we can't rebuild our formerly "wild" spaces in a Constitutional and just way (in regards to the current landowners) then the "good thing" shouldn't be done and the people like me who like the idea of having "things with big pointy teeth" nearby will have to either move where it can work or go visit the predators on vacation.

[Ankeny]

If, due to territory or habitat concerns, that means in the end there's no room for all three, the wolves are going to get the short end of the stick.

Well that's the way it worked in days gone by. Eventually, when people have had enough, the wolf will be delisted and measures will be taken to balance things out. But I think we all know the elk populations in wolf inhabited areas will never return to their previous numbers.

[carebear]

Well that's the way it worked in days gone by. Eventually, when people have had enough, the wolf will be delisted and measures will be taken to balance things out. But I think we all know the elk populations in wolf inhabited areas will never return to their previous numbers.

I think you're right, but that isn't necessarily a huge negative, just the cost of having a more balanced and natural ecosystem.

Just throwing out numbers for descriptive purposes:

Say there was a sustainable population of 500 elk in an area prior to the reintroduction of wolves (protected wolves) with an allowable, sustainable, hunting harvest of 30 a year.

10 wolves are introduced and in 10 years become a protected pack of 30, and the elk population starts dropping to say a consistent 100 animals and is in danger of being destroyed by the growing wolf pack. So hunting and trapping of wolves is permitted.

The wolf population is then kept at about 15 animals, the herd grows back up to 400 or so and elk hunting is allowed to the tune of 20 animals.

Sure, the elk aren't as numerous as before the wolves were reintroduced and human hunting opportunities have been reduced a bit, but a sustainable balance has been reestablished. Which, if we can find that balance, I'd call a win-win.

That's kind of what I see as the goal of reintroduction, manage the wildlife to include the predators, rather than removing them and only managing using human consumption as the only yardstick.

[M.E.Eldridge]

The discussion has been good so far, with plenty of civil debate on both sides of the wolf issue. I have to say, though, that wolves were eradicated for a reason, so that means in my book, that hunting, trapping and other forms of controlled, sensible population culling need to be introduced. Letting wolves grow wild with no checks on their population seems to me to be as stupid as trying to introduce African Lions to the U.S.

On the remarks regarding conservationist types being anti-american, remember that Teddy Roosevelt was himself a conservationist and he was instrumental in early American Conservation efforts. He was also a hunter and realized that hunting was a viable method for controling wildlife.

Modern tree-hugger types seem to forget his legacy and rarely, or so it seems to me, do they care at all about long-term effects of their 'protection' for animals like wolves. They assume that if wolves were once their, they should be there now. While this sounds well and good, remember that populations of herds of various animals across the country have changed drasticly as has the level of human involvement.

[Harve Curry]

+ 1 for M.E.Eldridge

[Sam]

I'm with Harve on this one. He has been real nice not bringing up the reintroduction of the "Mexican Brush Wolf" in his back yard, which has not been an outstanding sucess. Last I heard they had recaptured them all and put them in an enclosure. Stock losses and missing pets were the only sign that they had been reintroduced.

We have 2 of those "Mexican Brush Wolves" in our zoo here in Alamo. They look nothing like a wolf and lots like big yotes.

Sam

[MDHunter]

I go to Alaska a few times a year and no cases like that have even been confirmed. They are very contrary to wolf behavior. In fact all studies in america have shown that wolves cause no significant loss of life since the number of animals lost to wolves was negligibly higher than the ones that would have been lost to age or illness anyway. Alaska has had alot of problems with false reports like this in the past from sporting groups that want to be able to increase what they can kill and how many and will use any means necessary to demonize the animals.

Playboy,

On one of your other posts on this thread you asked someone to cite their sources. Are we to take the fact that you go to Alaska a few times each year, as a cited source?

Can I interpret your post to mean that you have personally peer reviewed every American study on wolves, and are paraphrasing their conclusions?

And does it occur to you that the groups who sponsor such studies might be slightly biased in their own right?

I travel to Alaska every year to hunt, but that sure doesn't make me an expert on wolves. However, talking to natives in villages in Southwest Alaska, their OPINIONS veer largely toward wolves having a detrimental effect on moose populations. I'm with Carebear in wondering if bears might not be just as responsible, but I think it's a stretch for any of us to state that wolves do not cause a significant loss of wildlife in some areas.

And by the way, Alaska also has somewhat of a problem with people from outside moving up there, having issues with the hunting/fishing/trapping lifestyle that some of the residents enjoy, and trying to float rhetoric that would stop the "senseless killing of beautiful animals."

More information can be found on other forums related to the re-introduction of gray wolves in the Northwest and their effects on elk and cattle populations, but those have already been mentioned on this thread.

Do I think wolves should be hunted to extinction in Alaska? No way. Do I think they should be hunted like any predator should be hunted, to keep their population and impact on the ecosystem? You betcha.

Michael

[1911Tuner]

Throughout time, all species...both predator and prey...have ebbed and flowed in numbers by natural events. Prey species grow, and predators thin them out to the point that the food supply can't support the number of predators. The predators thin out, and the prey species again begins to flourish. It's the way of things since time began. At one point, man was part of that, and fell under the same set of cruel game plans...but we managed to flourish because of our ability to come up with a better game plan. Then, we gradually became the master of all that we endeavored to control...and so it remains.

So...We have a predator species that causes problems for us and interferes with our game plan, so we first try to eradicate it...the same way that some cultures have tried to do with other human cultures. (The Plains Indians come to mind...as well as the American Bison.)

Now, in our enlightenment, we've come to realize that there's a very good reason for the natural order of things...and we started to manage rather than eradicate. To carefully control rather than to absolutely dominate. The other issue is, that we've been so successful in our climb to the top of the food chain, that we're leaving less space for the less successful predators
and even for the prey...and they're forced to adapt in order to survive...which is their main reason for being. To procreate and ensure the survival of the species...and the adaptation process that a species undertakes is bound to encroach on another's whenever there's competition for space or a food supply...and so it goes until one or the other is gone...
either by natural extinction or deliberate eradication...or until cross-breeding
blends the two into a single, separate species.

Not arguing for one side or the other on this. Wolves...and other species...are a serious problem in some areas, not in others. In some, their presence is barely known, except by the occasional sighting. In others, they're a real threat to pets, livestock, hunting ground...and even human life.
Overpopulation and/or adaptation of lesser agressive or non-predatory species can cause problems as well.

Wolves will be extinct one day. So will several other species. So will we.

[airmonkey]

+1 1911 Tuner

[PlayboyPenguin]

Playboy,

On one of your other posts on this thread you asked someone to cite their sources. Are we to take the fact that you go to Alaska a few times each year, as a cited source?

Can I interpret your post to mean that you have personally peer reviewed every American study on wolves, and are paraphrasing their conclusions?

And does it occur to you that the groups who sponsor such studies might be slightly biased in their own right?

I travel to Alaska every year to hunt, but that sure doesn't make me an expert on wolves. However, talking to natives in villages in Southwest Alaska, their OPINIONS veer largely toward wolves having a detrimental effect on moose populations. I'm with Carebear in wondering if bears might not be just as responsible, but I think it's a stretch for any of us to state that wolves do not cause a significant loss of wildlife in some areas.

And by the way, Alaska also has somewhat of a problem with people from outside moving up there, having issues with the hunting/fishing/trapping lifestyle that some of the residents enjoy, and trying to float rhetoric that would stop the "senseless killing of beautiful animals."

More information can be found on other forums related to the re-introduction of gray wolves in the Northwest and their effects on elk and cattle populations, but those have already been mentioned on this thread.

Do I think wolves should be hunted to extinction in Alaska? No way. Do I think they should be hunted like any predator should be hunted, to keep their population and impact on the ecosystem? You betcha.

Michael
Do not trust me...just go to the Alaskan state page and look up statictics on wolf kills and wolf effects on game animals. Not at all hard to find. Just don't get all your information on wolves from hunting magazines and pro-hunting websites.

[Harve Curry]

I don't get any of my information from hunting magazines and pro-hunting websites. I live in the Black Range of SW New Mexico. We just got 3 wolves released who have been trouble elsewhere.
Posters keep writing cull and keep the fear of man in them. I'll say again they are PROTECTED and that is not an option. Some little kids cannot play in the yard next to their houses anymore. If your family dog gets killed, horse, cattle, any pet, it's to bad for you. IF you can prove wolf kill, then only livestock are reembersed, but not if the wolf merely strolled by and nibbled on the MRE. The only justification is human life, and then you better have alot of proof because you are going to have to defend yourself in court=$.

As long as there's an Alaska or Canada, wolves will always be. We just had them under control from the lower 48 states.
When this wolf program is done the enviromentals will be introducing the grizzly bear here. They want it "pre-anglo".

Any critisism I make of todays enviromentals/conservationist should not be taken out of context. There is a difference between the conservationist of old like Aldo Leopold, Teddy Roosevelt, and todays enviromentals. They care nothing for how American's make a living, nothing for traditional American ways of life.
It's bleeding heart liberal BS with animal rights before people rights. The organizations that run it are anti-gun, anti hunting, and in many cases anti-property rights. DId I leave out the UN? Todays enviromental minded GO's and NGO's can't do $h!t with out a 4 wheeler.

I am a conservationist. My wife, children, and I are constantly preventing erosion, planting seed, preventing fire by selectivley clearing overgrown areas, pumping water that benefits all wildlife 365 days a year. I will not allow a 4 wheeler on my place, we walk everywhere or ride a horse. In this country tire tracks kill grass and takes years to go away. IF I have to haul a load then I make sure it's well worth the trip and make it all in one pass.

[1911Tuner]

Harve, it does sound like there's a problem there. As many have stated,
one area with wolves has zero issues, while in another, they're a serious problem. I like to know that they're out there, and wish them well...but if they were to become a problem here such as the one you describe, I'd
take the necessary steps to solve the problem. Dangerous is dangerous.
The family's safety and well-being takes precedence over the endangered species list as far as I'm concerned...and I consider my dogs as members of the family.

Maybe a coalition of like-minded neighboring landowners with a
Shoot/Shovel/Shut Up approach would provide an answer. I'd suggest
a speedy .22 bore in the .22-250/.220 Swift class with fragile bullets and head or neck shots...for obvious reasons...and go into it with the full understanding that if you're caught, there'll be hell to pay. You won't likely have to do much of it. Wolves are pretty smart, and will catch on quickly that danger lurks in certain areas.

Disclaimer:

This is a hypothetical solution to a real problem, and I'm not advocating
the actual violation of any local, state, or federal law.

[Ankeny]

I think what a lot of folks fail to realize is the majority of areas that reintroduced wolves inhabit in Wyoming are anything but "natural". On the contrary, they are some of the most artificial "natural" environments to be found. I assume all of you know the complaining in Wyoming is not about wolves that stayed in the park, but it's the wolves that have expanded their territory that have folks concerned. Any of you know how far the wolves have expanded? Would you imagine 100 miles, 200 miles...?

[Harve Curry]

Yep, when the wolfmen and wolfwomen get done we'll have a wolf belt that extends from the Mexican border through Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho , Montana clear into Canada.

[MD_Willington]

All I know is that when I'm at home in Canada, we worry about these guys more than wolves.

http://www.huntingvancouverisland.com/lg_images/cougar02.jpg

[Biker]

Now that's a good sized cat! A few months ago, we ran across some cougar tracks very close to a local ski resort. Big ones. A buddy of mine took a photo of a soda can laid inside one paw print. The can fit in the son of a gun without touching the edges.
Biker

[taralon]

...Genetic programming... ...animals attack only to eat... http://www.ebaumsworld.com/monkeyvstiger.html

Not really... There was a special on Discovery that was about making a game preserve to release and 'rewild' 2 tiger cubs. They showed a lot of footage of the tigers hunting, and one instance where the pair killed a bunch of some sort of antelope that stampeded into an ambush. 15 animals if I remember correctly. They made a big issue about how Tigers, when confronted with a large number of in flight small game animals will kill until either they've killed them all, or until they've lost sight/scent of the group. They'll often eat only one, or two of the animals and then go back on the prowl.

Feral dogs, and feral cats will often continue to kill prey even when they have already gorged, as will from my personal experience, bobcats, foxes, badgers, skunks and weasels. I don't find it unlikely that wolves would do the same faced with prey animals that are either exhausted or unable to flee quickly enough.

[MD_Willington]

Yeah, most I've seen are starving though.. I'm from Vancouver Island BC BTW... Plenty of cats on the Island..


http://users.frii.com/mytymyk/lions/beiercol.htm

Check out VI, *State or Province or V.I. = Vancouver Island (B.C.)...

[dillonuser]

I've talk to the "professionals" also. They have an agenda, are usually paid by goverment or some other NGO entity, so they get paid whether or not they produce anything of use, product, or service in their daily lives.

It was the famed outdoorsman Aldo Leopold who shot one of the last wolves near the Arizona - New Mexico border about 70 years ago. He wrote he watched as the green light went out of his eyes.:cool: He knew that wolves and man couldn't live close together. He's probably rolling in his grave because 3 wolves have recently been released in the Aldo Leopold Wilderness.(which is not big enough compared to Alaska or Canada.)
Now he's the poster boy so to speak, for the anti-hunting, anti-ranching, and anti-American enviromentals, who migrate out of cities and dictate that they know better:barf: .

Just as an FYI. The professionals I have dealt with are not from any government agency. They are a private organization which receives no government funding. However,they do take donations.
They are not anti-hunting,or anti-ranching(except when the ranchers sometimes go too far).