Wolf


PDA






bandk
January 4, 2012, 01:59 AM
Greetings,
My family has a rural getaway cabin, adjacent to National Forest in the Pacific NW (WA state). We have all the usual suspects around: cougar, black bear, and coyote. AT least 2 of 3 have been near the home, never causing a problem. We use a lot of common sense which includes our dogs but also have some high velocity lead as backup handy.

Now, we've spotted a wolf. We're not surprised, friends have spotted them a few miles deeper in to the National Forest going a few years back. This one, however, was seen within a hundred yards of our home. It showed up shortly after dawn, limping. I suspect it came out of the woods to get around a tough spot along a creek which is more like a small river. No other animals were seen. Anyhow, I was away, my better half got some limited photos. Unfortunately, no close up shots as the details of which are lost somewhere between manual f-stop and exposures from when I last played with the camera :-) ). I've uploaded one of the better ones.

So, the question is: are changes due to the protection plans around the cabin (no hunting, no outside trash). We usually carry a snub .38 (Corbon loads) or a compact 9mm (115gr). We find them convenient, light, and are therefore the go to weapons for carry. But, now that we have finally sen the other neighbors, should this lead to any changes? My daughter votes for another dog, but that was vetoed ;-).

I'm wondering: higher capacity sidearm, larger caliber, rifle or shotgun nearby?

thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Wolf" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hardluk1
January 4, 2012, 12:57 PM
If i had your place a few can of bear spray would be there for walks and use at the cabin. I love my compact handguns for CC but in the woods it will be something larger and high cap as a defence firearm. Maybe along the lines of a full size Glock, XD or M&P. Caliber of your choice 9mm to 10mm or 45acp as a defence handgun. Still lighter than many compacts as with the glock atleast but with way more rounds and carried open in a good flat pancake holster. Nothing to hang on like with brush like so many Kydex holsters can do. Look to this type holster-http://www.simplyrugged.com/cuda/

Up side of the handgun. You can still go hands free and pick up firewood and you need something that all can be functional with. A rifle or shot gun depending on a caliber heavy enough to do the job well might be hard for a newbe to also master. But a 20ga would do well with buck shot and slugs. The bear spray atleast around the cabin, or for wolfs or bears that you might walk up on while on trails works wonders. For a Cat, Good luck. If times are bad they will stalk you. Have several people armed with something if attacked. I have 43 years of stump'n around the woods and have walked up on pathers and bears in the everglades and bears in NC and they did not want anything to do with me . They were as suprized as me and left quickly.

You really no better than any of us as to how your family will react to the animals around you. If there not shooters or hunters. bear spray and dogs is it.

xfyrfiter
January 4, 2012, 01:04 PM
Biggest thing I would think, is to make sure your dogs are under control ie. leashed when outside. Not really necessary to change weaponry, as the wolf is a very human shy animal, and will in almost all cases disappear before you see them. They have been known to attack loose dogs, or other pets, but are usually hunger driven, they can however, be very dangerous if hurt or starving. Very few attacks by wolves are recorded in any media or other sources.

Batta
January 4, 2012, 01:10 PM
I personally would have nothing less than a .357mag but that will probably not stop a wolf or bear in there tracks. I think that a 9mm and.38spl is to light if you have to use them. I would recommend .44 mag or larger for a handgun and a rifle would be even better.

mdauben
January 4, 2012, 01:22 PM
I personally would have nothing less than a .357mag but that will probably not stop a wolf or bear in there tracks. I think that a 9mm and.38spl is to light if you have to use them. I would recommend .44 mag or larger for a handgun and a rifle would be even better.
I think you are vastly overestimating the capabilities of the average wolf. A typical North American wolf only weighs around 80 pounds. I would expect a .357 to easily stop a such an animal with proper shot placement (which is necessary for any firearm). A .38 or 9mm with proper loads would probably do so as well. As far as bear go, the .357 may be marginal, but again we are not talking about grizzly or coastal brown bears. While a rifle or shotgun may be the best bet, sometimes they are simply not practical to carry while performing many outdoor tasks.

DM~
January 4, 2012, 01:31 PM
You are seeing it from your cabin, all you need is a rifle and a shovel!!

DM

JohnM
January 4, 2012, 01:35 PM
I spot a few around the house, other people here in this valley spot them pretty regularly.
It's hard enough to get one to stay around for a picture, let alone get a shot.
Which is a big time no no around here anyway.

Mr.510
January 4, 2012, 01:41 PM
I have a house that backs up to a large state forest in Western WA and have had many talks with the local game wardens about a big kitty (cougar) that has frequented our yard. Here's the way I see it: No handgun that you'll actually carry on a day-to-day basis is going to stop a bear so you may as well forget about that. Maybe the report will scare one away if you're lucky, but you're not gonna kill one before it gets you. That leaves cougars, wolves, and coyotes. These are all relatively small, thin-skinned animals. Whatever works well against two legged predators will work well against them as well, but they are much faster moving than humans so shot placement goes right out the window. The warden I've talked to many times carries a high capacity polymer .45ACP with +P hollow points. I do the same.

brnmuenchow
January 4, 2012, 02:16 PM
I think you are vastly overestimating the capabilities of the average wolf. A typical North American wolf only weighs around 80 pounds. I would expect a .357 to easily stop a such an animal with proper shot placement (which is necessary for any firearm).
Agreed, I spent some time around a Wolf one on one and even though an amazing animal it is still very much a dog, and not like you are trying to shoot a "Bull mastiff" charging you even then a .357 Mag. can handle that with good shot placement.

You really no better than any of us as to how your family will react to the animals around you. If there not shooters or hunters. bear spray and dogs is it.
Also true, if you are being very careful as to your surroundings than hopefully he will do nothing more than pass through the area. I would certainly have family members armed with some type of spray at the least and be mindful of their surroundings and not travel alone outside for sure.

jcwit
January 4, 2012, 03:31 PM
AVG. wolf only weighing 80 lbs? Obviously these are not avg.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=138536

wolf695
January 4, 2012, 05:29 PM
you can p around, that will keep them away! skunk scent works also, spend rounds work as well!

holdencm9
January 4, 2012, 05:39 PM
The real lesson to learn here is to always set the camera back to auto mode after tinkering with the settings. I have needed to snap a quick photo numerous times only to find out that the last time I used the camera, I was taking time lapse photos with a 10-second shutter, 200 ISO and F/22 :banghead:

Regarding the wolf, I second mdauben's remarks. Wolves are not larger than your average fully grown german shephard or lab. I was actually shocked at how small the ones at the Wolf Center in Ely, MN were. And they were average. jcwit, methinks those photos are 'shopped :) And from my research, IF that photo was real, and the alleged 230 lbs wolf was real, then it obliterated the previous record of 175 lbs, but it hasn't yet been confirmed. But even then, the record-largest wolf 230 lbs? I still think .357 will do the trick. For the typical 80-lbs wolf, it will DEFINITELY do the job. But still, usually only a desperate animal will attack a human, and a wolf that gets up near 175 lbs is probably one heck of a hunter, and ain't desperate! :)

ApacheCoTodd
January 6, 2012, 11:37 AM
We have the re-planted Mexican Grays up by us and have had them all around including up against the cabin when they feel they're alone.

One morning I had the door open and noted by dog making noises I'd never heard her make in the past - in fact didn't think it was her doing it till I squinted out into the dark - and blew it off while setting up the coffee. Eventually, her sounds grew so weird that I couldn't ignore them (and it was getting seriously cold in the kitchen) so I went out to make sure she wasn't tormenting an elk or antelope as she was wont to do. When I walked to the edge of the porch and out side of the porch light I could see she was standing board stiff with her tail straight down, quivering fiercely and making some bizarre inhaling sounds that stone, gave me the willies. Now, she's half coyote so odd behavior was the norm but her presentation this morning was waaaay beyond her usual weird.

So, I walk up to her to try to talk her down as I've had to do in the past but she's completely ignoring me and in no way acting like she might bite me (this time) so I ease up on her, put my hand on her back and look up the hill side where she's staring daggers in the dark. Exactly as I focus, I see dark shapes against snow patches almost floating towards us due to the complete lack of sound. As Daisy tenses (not gonna "give" an inch) I grab her scruff with my left hand and wave my right and in my best military "hoooaaah!" voice belt out a single cinematic "WHOOOA!"

Now these shapes finally make a sound as the first three scrape to a halt and dash back up the hill in the dark and I try to scoop up my own beast to finish the coffee - of course she's having none of that so I shine her on and go get me Mossberg just in case, tie her on a long lead where she's standing and commence to finish up the coffee till the sun comes up and she calms down enough to bring her in.

After it brightens up I see by the tracks that there were actually two wolves closer than the three that I had seen and none of them must have seen me slide up to the dog as I came around the other side of my pick-up. In total, there were tracks for eight wolves coming down the hill to feast on my beastie but they locked solid and turned away when one human hollered at them. For the entire rest of the week they would follow us around - usually just out of sight - trying to whine our dogs into the woods for a snack.

I figure, carry a gun if only to increase your own confidence as mostly, dogs acting foolish will be based on the nervousness or fear that they read in you.

Oddly, I'm considerably more concerned about mule deer and elk layin' the hoof whammy on me or my dogs than I am the wolves.

Nuclear
January 6, 2012, 01:28 PM
Individual 80 lb wolves are not as big a concern as a pack of 80 lb wolves...I would want some more capacity or faster reload than a revolver or double barrel shotgun. Just sayin'.

buck460XVR
January 6, 2012, 01:50 PM
You are seeing it from your cabin, all you need is a rifle and a shovel!!

DM

<Deleted reference to illegal acts>

The OP saw one wolf, one time. He does not need to add any howitzers to his arsenal. He needs to be aware they are there and keep good track of his pets if he wants to keep them around for long. As far as his family, he'd be better off to be concerned about the icy roads and other accidents doing them harm as statistics have shown the odds of a human getting attacked by a wolf or a pack of wolves in the lower 48 is lower than being hit by a meteorite. Odds are he is more likely to be injured by the gun he is carrying to protect himself than he is to be attacked by wolves. Folks need to be realistic and level headed instead of believing in fairy tales.

With the lifting of wolves from the endangered species list, there will be more seasons and more control on wolf populations. Their numbers, once seasons and control is established will never reach problem numbers again in the lower 48. Once they are hunted again, they will quickly learn to avoid humans or die. This is reality, not Little Red Riding Hood.

JustinJ
January 6, 2012, 03:26 PM
Wolves in the lower 48 have been hunted so ruthlessly that their fear of humans is too high to make an attack a valid concern. The new dog you vetoed would be far more likely to bite a person than that wolf. If you're worried about it get the bear spray but i would consider myself lucky to actually see a wild wolf.

<deleted>

mdauben
January 6, 2012, 04:36 PM
AVG. wolf only weighing 80 lbs? Obviously these are not avg.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?t=138536
Cough-Photoshop-Cough. :rolleyes:

mljdeckard
January 6, 2012, 04:42 PM
Am I the only one who feels like wolves are on the list of critters I don't want to mess with at all at handgun ranges? I would stack them with bears and cougars, as in, overkill is appropriate, since they can mess you up if you miss. A coyote on the other hand, is not nearly as likely to cause you serious harm if you injure it. I put them in .357/10mm territory. And I would rather use a rifle.

If it is limping, I might also call the local wildlife authorities, they might be interested in trapping it.

jcwit
January 6, 2012, 04:46 PM
Cough-Photoshop-Cough.

They claim it wasn't photoshoped. I have no idea, all I did was forward the post. Did you read the whold thread? Can you prove its photoshoped?

jcwit
January 6, 2012, 04:48 PM
Sure glad we have all sorts of folks who know all about wildlife management!

TX1911fan
January 6, 2012, 04:50 PM
I'd go with a shotgun and buckshot myself. Shot placement not as critical. A sidearm as a backup would be a good idea if you miss and it gets in close, but by that time you're screwed anyway.

JustinJ
January 6, 2012, 05:21 PM
I HATE, not dislike, wolves and belive they have no place in the lower 48.

Having seen what wolves do to other game animal herds and livestock I have no use for them. I think the reintroduction of them is part of a long reaching goal by the bunny loving tree huggers to stop grazing on public land.

This may come as a surprise but Wolves were here long before Europeans so it must have been God who put them her instead of your "tree huggers".

Wolves do nothing to game that other predatory animals dont. Characteristics of a predator are generally learned in elementary school. Personally i'd rather people that actually understand biology and ecology and who can make better arguements than "kill them because tree huggers like them" determine policy.

JohnM
January 6, 2012, 05:21 PM
I have to wonder about the comments here about feeling the need to be armed to the hilt because there might be wolves in the area, or the idea they should be eradicated from the face of the earth.

Have any of these people actually been up close to these animals in the wild?
In this mountain ranch country where I live they're common, as are grizzlies and mountain lions.
No one worries about it; the kids roam and play with no concerns of the parents.
Cattlemen don't like the ideas of the introduced wolves, but they're here and we've always had to deal with the bears and lions anyway.

The only thing we watch for are grizzlies that start hanging around.
The word goes out and if they don't move on we get Game&Fish to come in and trap them.

BikerRN
January 6, 2012, 06:05 PM
I guess you haven't had to deal with lost livestock due to a reintroduced problem that was handled, correctly I might add in my opinion, years ago.

Mastredons were here on the earth years ago as well. Should we scientificly create a few in a laboratory using DNA from these creatures and reintroduce them to thier native homeland in the Hollywood hills?

Biker

JustinJ
January 6, 2012, 06:08 PM
Mastredons were here on the earth years ago as well. Should we scientificly create a few in a laboratory using DNA from these creatures and reintroduce them to thier native homeland in the Hollywood hills?

Another thing taught in elementary school is that man was not the sole cause of mastodon extinction.

JohnM
January 6, 2012, 06:13 PM
man did not wipe out mastedons.

That's still debated.
As far as livestock losses to wolves, there's some and loss reparations can be a problem sometimes, but the Feds are getting better about it.
A few wolves out on the range do mysteriously disappear.

Roverboy
January 6, 2012, 06:17 PM
Any time I feel like I need to hug a tree I go out in my front yard and hug one of the Spruce tees.

JustinJ
January 6, 2012, 06:17 PM
That's still debated.

Yeah, i changed it to "sole cause", i guess after you saw it, to aovid that debate. Ultimately man was a pressure but climate change the is fairly obvious culprit.

Zombiphobia
January 6, 2012, 06:30 PM
it's unlikely a wolf, let alone one who's alone, will attack you unprovoked.

ApacheCoTodd
January 6, 2012, 06:33 PM
I guess you haven't had to deal with lost livestock due to a reintroduced problem that was handled, correctly I might add in my opinion, years ago.

Mastredons were here on the earth years ago as well. Should we scientificly create a few in a laboratory using DNA from these creatures and reintroduce them to thier native homeland in the Hollywood hills?

Biker
I ABSOLUTELY have dealt with the impact in four different states and am ragged ass tired of the over blown effects of wolves on livestock when the livestock them selves are artificially introduced and waaaay beyond the natural footprint of the land they occupy.

So, that said, man up on your statement regarding a open season on illegals now!

I personally am opposed to illegal immigration but shooting them would have rendered one of my Norwegian great grandfathers as a justified target.

buck460XVR
January 6, 2012, 06:51 PM
I guess you haven't had to deal with lost livestock due to a reintroduced problem that was handled, correctly I might add in my opinion, years ago.

Mastredons were here on the earth years ago as well. Should we scientificly create a few in a laboratory using DNA from these creatures and reintroduce them to thier native homeland in the Hollywood hills?

Biker


The majority of wolves in the lower 48 states were not "reintroduced". As a matter of fact, many wolf opponents argued that the Yellowstone reintroductions were unnecessary, as American wolves were never really in danger of biological extinction. That means the the majority of wolves introduced themselves from Canada or repopulated from small packs that were never really eradicated. While many whine that the Wisconsin DNR planted wolves here to rid the state of whitetail deer, the truth is our wolves either came from packs in Minnesota or the U.P. of Michigan.

Comparing the extinction of Mega Fauna( I believe they were Mastodons, not Mastredons) to the eradication of wolves is like comparing apples to wolf poop. One was eradicated because of man's fear and greed, and one went extinct because it could not adapt to a changing environment. No similarities whatsoever. At one time when man competed against the wolf for food and the loss of livestock could be a financial hardship for the owner, their elimination seemed to make sense. But, we no longer compete with the wolf for food, as there is virtually no subsistence hunting in the lower 48. We now hunt game animals primarily for sport and those game animals wolves take don't mean we go hungry, it means we won't have a set of horns to put on the wall or a picture to hang. Even then most of those that hate wolves because of their predation on game animals are just using the wolf as a scapegoat for their poor hunting skills. Basically it's a "let's kill 'em all so I get a deer every year" mindset. Since the 1990s the owners of most livestock and pets that were actually killed by wolves have been compensated appropriately. Thus in the case of livestock there is not a financial burden. As in the case of pets, it's no different than coyote predation. Folks are foolish enough to let their pets run at large within the wolves and coyote range and then cry when they get eaten. Sorry, but most of the times these incidents would not happen if the owners were responsible. Still they get compensated. While I feel that wolf numbers need to be kept within reasonable limits and that the hunting of them will keep them from loosing their fear of man, I cringe when I see public postings from hunters that advocate illegal and unethical practices. It's gives us all a bad image and certainly is not how the majority of responsible and law abiding hunters want non-hunters to perceive us.

JustinJ
January 6, 2012, 06:55 PM
Well put, buck460XVR.

holdencm9
January 6, 2012, 07:00 PM
Minnesota actually has the largest timber wolf population in the US, at over 3,000. The number to remove them from the endangered species list was likely surpassed 20 years ago, at around 1,500 wolves. Now they are actually considering issuing wolf hunting permits here to control the population.

Bovice
January 6, 2012, 07:07 PM
I thought this was going to be a thread about ammo.

It's a wild dog. You don't need a .500 S&W to kill it, a 9mm is plenty!

jcwit
January 6, 2012, 07:55 PM
Guys, this is getting way, way off topic and has left The High Road, keeps up the mods will be on their way and close it.

JustinJ
January 6, 2012, 07:58 PM
can I point out that none of this immigration business has anything at all to do with wolves?

Agreed. Wolves are native.

mdauben
January 6, 2012, 10:04 PM
<deleted>

They claim it wasn't photoshoped. I have no idea, all I did was forward the post. Did you read the whold thread? Can you prove its photoshoped?
Well, when I'm not shooting guns I shoot photographs (another expensive hobby!) and I use Photoshop and other image software all the time. Honestly, even if I didn't know anything about wolves, just looking at those photos for a few seconds the wolves are obviously "pasted" into the photos of the hunters. I actually wasn't sure if you had posted that link as a joke or not since they seemed so obviously fake. If you want some sort of hard "proof" I can't give you any, other than my educated opinion, but there is no doubt in my mind that those photos have been (not very expertly) doctored. <shrug>

MAKster
January 6, 2012, 10:40 PM
I also think the wolf photos are clearly photoshopped. The wolf pics were blown up and pasted on the photos of the men. Those wolves would be 300 pounds if the photos were real. In some of the photos the man's hands are larger than his head.

d2wing
January 6, 2012, 11:11 PM
The biggest wolf I've seen was 125 lbs but even here in Minnesota they are not often seen. The only case I know of someone being attacked happened around livestock. They've been known to follow riders on horses but I never heard of an attack. They do kill livestock for sport as well as food and it is a problem in some areas. They do kill alot of deer in the Northern part of the state. A friends place West of Duluth used to have alot of deer, the wolves all but wiped them out. I don't know if they wiped out the Moose but moose have become rare in the last 20 years.

Onmilo
January 6, 2012, 11:19 PM
We don't have wolves here, at least none that can be substantiated.
We do have "coy-dogs", a hybrid of coyote and feral dogs.
These animals hang in packs as wolves do, and are much more aggresive towards humans than coyote.

I shoot them down whenever I come across them, they are a nuisance animal and the account for large kills of pheasant, quail, rabbit, chickens, piglets, calves, and anything else they can hunt down for food.
Because they roam and hunt in packs, they can take down larger animals with ease, coyote tend to be scavengers of larger animals.

If the wolves operate like the coy-dogs, they can become a threat to livestock, game animals, and even humans.
Make no illusions about these critters, they can be very, very dangerous to deal with away from a safe harbor.

Zombiphobia
January 7, 2012, 12:22 AM
is there actually even a documented VERIFIABLE case of a healthy wolf(not rabid or starving etc..) attacking a human unprovoked? I don't beleive it at all.

EmGeeGeorge
January 7, 2012, 12:27 AM
In the continental U.S., health issues such as respiratory problems, digestive problems, calving complications and disease were overwhelmingly the most significant causes of cattle death in 2005.

Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005.

Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle than wolves killed that year.

Domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005.

Theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation.

Predation by coyotes was the largest cause of sheep loss in 2005, accounting for 23% of all losses, followed by health problems & weather-related issues.

In states with wolf populations, an average of less than 2.5% of sheep loss was due to predation by wolves in 2005

<deleted>

9MMare
January 7, 2012, 02:26 AM
As far as I know, there are no recorded incidents of wolves killing any humans in the US, ever. In packs or alone.

As for livestock, I have livestock too.

If your livestock is on your OWN PROPERTY, then you have the right to kill or otherwise dissuade predators. If it is on leased public lands, you do not. You do not have the right to kill a wild, living legacy of America that is a public resource...treasured and respected by many. They are public property, just like the public lands you are leasing. (Leasing for dirt cheap, btw).

Killing them for your convenience is disgusting and selfish. If that's the only way you can provide for your family (oh, they're killing our cattle! My kids will go hungry!) then get some big dogs, get some wilder cattle, get off our public lands and onto your own property, or get into another business.

As for hunters, you have to share the elk and deer with the other LEGAL residents of the land...too bad. Again, wolves are a wild, incredible legacy. Those of us that dont hunt and some that do STILL respect and appreciate ALL the wild things out there. They belong to all of us.

The healthy existence of prey and predators is an indicator that humans are respecting and using the land in a sustainable, healthy manner. If that doesnt sound familiar, that's because we're currently NOT doing so.

Anyone who fears wolves is ignorant IMO. I have confronted bears and cougars, alone, unarmed, and acted appropriately and been fine. I have no fear of wolves either. Because I have been properly educated about their behavior. I have a healthy fear of grizzley bears however, for factual, reasonable reasons. *I* have learned the difference.

GWARGHOUL
January 7, 2012, 03:14 AM
Well said 9MMare.

captain awesome
January 7, 2012, 03:50 AM
my opinion on the matter, I would just as soon see them scarce. My father and two brothers and I were hunting in the white mountains in AZ last year and found a spot with a large herd of elk, witnessed a spectacular display from less than 50 yards when two large bulls were having it out. There were no less than seven other bulls bugling in the area, it was one of my favorite days of hunting I have ever had. Shortly before shooting light was up, the wolves came. I heard the first wolf howl and the bugling instantly stopped. All the elk in the pastures we could see disappeared, and my Brother filled his tag with the last cow leaving the meadow. When we were field dressing it those wolves were close, and watching us. just inside the tree line. We caught a couple glimpses of them in the headlights. If I had been alone, I would not have felt safe. even as it was I felt uneasy. They might have been waiting for the gut pile but i doubt they would have waited so long if the trucks lights weren't on and the engine running with 4 of us out there working on that elk.
If I ever have the legal opportunity to shoot a wolf or more I sure will. There's a darn good reason our predecessors got rid of most of them. Do a little searching around if you don't believe wolves could be a danger to humans. There have been plenty of attacks and deaths, though no doubt most were before the internet. Thinking there haven't and never would be is just plain naive. Look in old journals and writings of pioneers and early settlers (especially in old Indian writings), you will find your evidence of attacks on humans there for sure. And What exactly would provoking entail? Them being hungry and you being alone? Your child slips away undetected seems like an easy meal for a single wolf let alone a pack. I recall just wandering out of camp or sneaking away on my own when I was as little as 6. If there were wolves around I would have been in serious danger. Personally I look at a pack of wolves as the most dangerous and effective large predators in the 48 states. how many mountain lions or black bears will attack a full grown healthy bull elk? It happens but rarely, and I would imagine most of the time when it does, it goes something like this;
http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/1000021419
I have seen footage of a wolf pack attacking one, more than once as a matter of fact. and successfully to boot.

The other problem I have with them is the pets and live stock issue. Sure the government compensates people for their losses but who pays the government? That's right you and me. So we paid for the pests to be put back and now are stuck with the bill for the damage they cause. It doesn't sit well with me. And then we have to try our best to scare them away without lethal force if they decide to attack our pets and live stock. At least that's what it used to be. it may be different now.

putting them back and repopulating was a mistake. and unfortunately one we will have to live with now.

9mmare said; As far as I know, there are no recorded incidents of wolves killing any humans in the US, ever. In packs or alone.
now you know;
http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_1753.html
and that's just these documentations, there may be more, and definitely more undocumented. the man who was killed might have been in Saskatchewan, but that is close enough for me. should that woman not have feared the wolf that attacked her?

I Also don't like the thought of the deer herds being decimated. We don't have deer populations running rampant in AZ like they do in other states. The last thing we need is wolves. I like hunting and I DON'T want to share it with wolves. Being a human I don't have to accept it and I will piss and moan until I get my way:neener:.

But think about it this way, reintroducing natural predators and increasing their populations has become the latest popular thing. Why? The right to bear arms has become largely viewed as for sporting purposes, even though we at THR know that was a lot of nonsense and that was never the 2nd amendments intended purpose. If the "tree huggin nature nazi's" have there way, there would be no more hunting. it would all take its natural cycle and the predators would do their job. Where does that leave us? One more win for the anti's if there is no longer a need for "sporting purposes"

people need to look at the big picture and think more about true cause and effect.

BikerRN
January 7, 2012, 03:55 AM
Capt Awesome,

Thank you for expressing the things I was trying to say but failed at.

BikerRN

jcwit
January 7, 2012, 08:10 AM
In the continental U.S., health issues such as respiratory problems, digestive problems, calving complications and disease were overwhelmingly the most significant causes of cattle death in 2005.

Only 0.11% of all cattle losses were due to wolf predation in 2005.

Coyotes killed more than 22 times more cattle than wolves killed that year.

Domestic dogs killed almost 5 times as many cattle, and vultures killed almost twice as many cattle as wolves did in 2005.

Theft was responsible for almost 5 times as many cattle losses as were lost by wolf predation.

Predation by coyotes was the largest cause of sheep loss in 2005, accounting for 23% of all losses, followed by health problems & weather-related issues.

In states with wolf populations, an average of less than 2.5% of sheep loss was due to predation by wolves in 2005

<deleted>


Utmost attention needs to be paid to this post!

captain awesome
January 7, 2012, 10:02 AM
Utmost attention needs to be paid to this post!

agreed. I also forgot to mention I already shoot as many coyotes as I can as well.

KodiakBeer
January 7, 2012, 10:39 AM
I find the idea of people being afraid of wolves almost laughable! Here in Alaska people live around wolves without soiling themselves or keeping the children indoors.

As the seasons open up start buying wolf tags. A wolf is a fantastic game animal and the pelts are beautiful.

Schutzen
January 7, 2012, 10:43 AM
One item everyone seems to have over looked it the poster listed the wolf as limping. My experiences are with coyotes and feral dogs, but that experience has been that an injured or aged predator is far more dangerous and far more likely to attack around a home/farmstead than a healthy predator. The healthy predator will tend to prey on it's natural food supply. My suspicion is your primary danger is an attack on your dog or other livestock that might spill over to you when you or a family member go to the aid of your pet.

I would be very cautious around a limping wolf and I would carry a heavy caliber handgun. My perferance is for the .44 Magnum, but anything that pushes 175 grains or more at roughly 900-1000 fps should do the job. As with the two legged predators, keep shooting until the threat neutralized.

buck460XVR
January 7, 2012, 11:12 AM
I find the idea of people being afraid of wolves almost laughable!


'Cause apparently, most folks have got their education on wolves from schools of thought like this........Big Bad Wolves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShE27Hst_NM)

cassandrasdaddy
January 7, 2012, 12:42 PM
(especially in old Indian writings),

could you point a feller to some of those writings?!?.....

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_most_Native_American_Tribes_in_America_have_a_written_language

makes a feller wonder vis a vis the quality of your facts in general quite a bit actually

JoNate
January 7, 2012, 12:52 PM
This is an interesting thread that I am enjoying. Us city kids don't have these experiences.

Keep it up!

cassandrasdaddy
January 7, 2012, 12:55 PM
The heaviest recorded gray wolf in North America was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939 and weighed 79.4 kilograms (175 lb),[50] while the heaviest recorded wolf in Eurasia was killed after World War II in the Kobelyakski Area of the Poltavskij Region, Ukrainian SSR, and weighed 86 kilograms (190 lb).[51

d2wing
January 7, 2012, 01:10 PM
I agree with Capt awesome 100%. Some of you have never seen your livelihood wiped out or your game animals gone. Life is tough enough in the woods without outsiders telling people they are not allowed to
Protect themselves and what they value. Go run your own life.
That's the problem. Everyone thinks their nose should be in others business.
Are you(the government) going to be everyone's master.

Vern Humphrey
January 7, 2012, 01:45 PM
Attacks by wolves on humans are very rare.

For what it's worth, Phil Shoemaker, who is a bear guide and lives in bear country in Alaska recommends a .357 with a heavy (180 grain) bullet loaded hot as defense against grizzley. His rationnale is that you need a hit in the central nervous system (maily the brain) to stop a girzzley, and a .357 might allow you a second shot.

But in the end he says it's the confidence the gun gives you that's important -- animals can sense your attitude and a confident, armed man is something they tend to leave alone.

788Ham
January 7, 2012, 02:04 PM
mljdeckard, "If it is limping, I might call the local authorities, they might be interested in trapping it."

I have a good buddy, his son is a wildlife biologist for Ariz. Game and Fish, his studies are in the Red Wolf exclusively. This past 3 months, he has tracked, and tried to dart and tranquilize, a male Red who'd been shot in the RT hindquarter, leaving him hardly able to run down anything to eat. Traps were set, 6 of them, to no avail. Finally a week ago, he was successful in darting him, was put down at that time. Most of these wolves weigh around 80 lbs., males, females weigh around 55 to 60 lbs. So, just setting out a trap to capture a wild wolf isn't as easy as, say trapping a muskrat, they're not by any means stupid! The deceased wolf weighed in at 40 lbs., quite a ways from a healthy male Red Wolf.

outboard
January 7, 2012, 03:45 PM
The future of the Grey Wolf in the lower 48 is by no means clear. Management of our game animals as well as predators is an exceptionally difficult task. Choices are made based not only on science but economics and public opinion as well in an ever-changing environment. Thanks to the information age we can dig up "facts" to support our stance regardless of what that stance is, Big Bad Wolf or keystone species of a healthy ecosystem. The Fact is wolves are in several western states. So what do we do?

What justifies extirpation of the wolf?
That we are scared of them... I've been stalked by a mountain lion while elk hunting. Scared the heck out of me, however, ended well for both. Experiences like this are not uncommon, however, far from justifies the elimination of a species.
That they impact the bottom line of a sector of the livestock industry... (Some would call that "the price of doing business", besides, as stated before there are programs to offset these economic losses.)
That they reduce game animal populations... Have the ability to take out the biggest and best... In Utah vehicle-wildlife collisions account for more mule deer loss than anuall hunter harvest. The largest threats to Utah's mule deer populations 1) continued critical habitat loss due to urbanization and 2) habitat fragmentation due to urbanization and resource development .
Vilifying the wolf is far easier than grappeling with the real issues. Unfortunately, once the wolf populations are decimated we will not see rebounding game populations, just fewer wolves.
States in cooperation with the feds need to determine acceptable population levels and issue harvest tags for the surplus wolf population. I am not a big fan of wildlife reintroduction programs, the wolf is no exception. However, they are back and we must adapt.
I second the .357, 180 grain for defense against wolf, dog, black bear and of course ill intentioned 2 legged predators

9MMare
January 7, 2012, 03:48 PM
Sorry Capt. Awesome, just because you are afraid of them doesnt make them dangerous to humans. Please back it up with some sources, because there are few legitimate records of it happening in the US that I'm aware of.

And too bad if it inconveniences hunters....be a better hunter. You are a human, you have the brains, no? And if it comes down to numbers, then our native wildlife has a right to the stock as well. That wildlife belongs to all of us, not just the hunters. Wolves are a living legacy that keep nature in balance. Hunters are an unnatural part of it. I am not against hunting but it's not a 'right.' It must be done in a way that preserves and sustains the wildlife and ecosystems that belong to all Americans.

As for livestock and pets, well I have the same. And I addressed it in my post. Wolves were nearly exterminated to protect people's livestock..that doesnt make it right. Just because that allowed you to get used to running stock without predators doesnt mean that the rest of American doesnt value the return of large predators and healthy ecosystems.

If your stock is on public lands, you shouldnt have the right to kill everything else out there....(and at this time, you legally can in many cases)....grazing on public lands is dirt cheap compared with alot of other land use and should be considered a privilege, not a right. That land belongs to all of us.

If people police (shoot predators) the areas around their homes, then cougars and wolves and coyotes learn to stay clear and you cull the animals that arent afraid of humans...and those genes get removed from the line... or the sick and weak that look for easier prey.

9MMare, ex-park ranger

9MMare
January 7, 2012, 03:58 PM
. I am not a big fan of wildlife reintroduction programs, the wolf is no exception. However, they are back and we must adapt.


Neither am I. Under the laws at the time that the govt decided to start reintroducing wolves to the lower 48, the laws stated that if a species listed on the endangered list repopulated an area on it's own, it was still completely protected from hunting or harrassment.

OTOH, the govt was responsible for any animals that it reintroduced and that meant compensating ranchers, etc for losses and moving/removing animals that caused problems.

Reintroduction was a huge mistake IMO. There were/are wolves in British Columbia that would have...and did...return on their own and they would have been completely protected (legally anyway) and the ranchers would have had to deal with it by changing their practices, by adapting (Yes, I realise there are many illegal options at their disposal).

The govt doesnt owe ranchers predator-free enviroments. And I love ranching and working cattle. I just would rather see a better balance and a more realistic view of the economics behind ranching....there are enough agricultural subsidies out there as it is. Cheap grazing leases on public lands and replacing livestock losses is just another form of govt handout.

d2wing
January 7, 2012, 04:50 PM
Btw, Minnesota wolfs are native, not reintroduced, we've always had them. They are just no longer endangered here. We also do not have public grazing here. Some of you clearly don't know much about other places.

9MMare
January 7, 2012, 04:54 PM
True. I was referring more the western wolves. MN's wolves are mostly in the Nat Park and islands in the lake.

And in a state with loads of mild-mannered dairy cattle, MN doesnt seem to have much problem with the wolves....hmmmm. I wonder why ranchers out west do?

JohnM
January 7, 2012, 05:02 PM
...hmmmm. I wonder why ranchers out west do?

Because out here we run cattle across vast areas and even ranchers who can still afford to have riders can't watch them all the time.
And the range isn't a free givaway. Grazing fees go up all the time and the number of days cattle can be on the range gets less.
Plus the Feds require expensive drift fences to be maintained and then taken down every fall.
A family ranch has a tough time getting much off the FS or BLM lands anymore.

d2wing
January 7, 2012, 06:37 PM
9mm you must be making that up because it is wrong like just about everything else you said. Wolves don't just live in parks, certainly not on islands to any large degree. Wolves move around and hunt large areas. They are more apt to destroy flocks of turkeys and sheep although they do take down cattle. More feeder cattle than dairy. But again you wouldn't know. You must work for the government. Stick your nose in when you don't know what is going on.
I am wondering what island and what lake you are referring to?
Minnesota has over 10000 lakes. Many of them have islands.

cassandrasdaddy
January 7, 2012, 07:02 PM
so what was the mn loss to wolves. asks the guys whose inlaws farm and raise cattle in minn and who can't recall ever having a loss to wolves

Gato MontÚs
January 7, 2012, 08:35 PM
To the OP...

I wouldn't change a damn thing. This is the first time you've seen one, but I'd place a large bet that they've been there before and you never knew it. Just be smart about the obvious (trash, game entrails, pets) and you've got nothing to fear, regardless of what some of these creeps are preaching.

If anything, be joyous in the fact that your SO was lucky enough to catch a glimpse of one of the most elusive creatures in North America.

9MMare
January 7, 2012, 08:48 PM
9mm you must be making that up because it is wrong like just about everything else you said. Wolves don't just live in parks, certainly not on islands to any large degree. Wolves move around and hunt large areas. They are more apt to destroy flocks of turkeys and sheep although they do take down cattle. More feeder cattle than dairy. But again you wouldn't know. You must work for the government. Stick your nose in when you don't know what is going on.
I am wondering what island and what lake you are referring to?
Minnesota has over 10000 lakes. Many of them have islands.

I didnt say 'only' in parks. And I was thinking of Isle (island) Royale Nat Park in Michigan, sorry.


Sorry, I'll have to see if I can get the money back for my Bachelor of Science in resource management....you seem to have all the answers...altho you didnt really point out anything I wrote that was wrong....the biggest island I was thinking of is in Michigan, but....on the money otherwise.

d2wing
January 7, 2012, 09:30 PM
There's been several news reports lately. They also caused big losses to turkey farmers in the central area of the state. They are unlikely to damage dairy cattle, hogs or chickens because most of those are big confinment farms now.
I glad you realized that Minnesota is not Michigan. The idea you have that wolves should have more rights than people bother me. You must be a little lower on the food chain.
I believe the topic is what should the op do about a lame wolf. Maybe he should call the local sheriff and see if they can capture it or put it down. Or let it ravage livestock like a three legged wolf did here in Minnesota. It's on display at the historical society in Becker Co.

cassandrasdaddy
January 7, 2012, 09:45 PM
i can't find those "several news reports" can you give a hint?

http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_depredation_on_livestock_in_minnesota.htm

d2wing
January 7, 2012, 09:45 PM
I hope I am not the first to tell you that other people have been to college too. When you are older you will realize that it means you got a liberal brainwashing and with effort you could work at Mcdonalds unless you are vegetarian. Or then there is government work.

cassandrasdaddy
January 7, 2012, 09:53 PM
so thats a no to those "several articles"? and i take it you didn't read the link? tldr?

82blackbird
January 7, 2012, 11:47 PM
This forum has some good reading by hunters that hunt in areas before the wolf was introduced and after. It has some real facts to consider and not opinions as has been stated too often here.


http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f114/

captain awesome
January 8, 2012, 12:16 AM
9mmmare, why is it that you are choosing to ignore the source that I sighted college boy? Any way and at cassandrasdaddy, do you not think any Indians in the history of the world ever had a story or tail translated to English and written down? I have a couple compilations sitting on my bookshelf as I type. not to mention the various ones included in my own family history books, I am a very small part Indian.

As for the hunting aspect it has nothing to do with me being a good, bad or better hunter. I am already a very successful hunter and do not need to improve my skills, though I constantly strive to.

Any one who thinks wolves are not dangerous to humans should prove it. why don't you go and try to make friends with a wolf pack alone and unarmed? I mean really try. Come back and tell us all about it.

wake up. wolves are dangerous predators, not only because they are smart, but also because they team up. Just because you don't hear of them slaughtering humans with bloodthirsty rabid rage on a daily basis does not mean they are cute cuddly friendly critters. Yes, If I was walking alone in the woods unarmed with a pack of wolves nearby I would be somewhat frightened. Any sane or smart person would and should be. Healthy fears and respect of dangerous things are what keeps people in general alive.

Is it any wonder that an ex park ranger is taking the side of the wolves. It was after all their, among others, pet project. And these are the same people (them and their cousins in the forest service) that close off access to old logging roads and such and treat their jurisdiction as though they are the only ones who have any right to it. They claim it is to preserve it for every one to enjoy but if no one can get in then no one can enjoy it, and if you have the nerve to go in by motor vehicle and enjoy it anyway they will graciously write you a ticket. That's the mentality that these people have, they know better than everyone else. A college degree gains you no respect from me as you can tell, for a variety of reasons which I won't go into here, but the self righteous attitude of "I know more than you" that so often our educated brethren exude is one of them.

The people that have chosen to argue against my reasoning have to resort to a lot of cheap shots. This is Typical behavior of another group I know of that are against the second amendment.

I am 100% pro freedom, and keeping wolf populations down to a very small number is one of the freedoms I sincerely wish Americans to have.

I Suppose I have never answered the OP's question, I would stay in groups outdoors and always carry a side arm of 357 magnum or better. This is good advice for most people, urban or rural.

mjsdwash
January 8, 2012, 12:41 AM
pretty sure there's only been two or so wolf attack's in north america, wounded or not in all recorded history... I would not worry too much.

9MMare
January 8, 2012, 01:49 AM
LOL

The AARP is starting to send me mail....sorry, very poor assessment.

(Of course I've refused to open any of it....)

9MMare
January 8, 2012, 01:57 AM
There's been several news reports lately. They also caused big losses to turkey farmers in the central area of the state. They are unlikely to damage dairy cattle, hogs or chickens because most of those are big confinment farms now.
I glad you realized that Minnesota is not Michigan. The idea you have that wolves should have more rights than people bother me. You must be a little lower on the food chain.
I believe the topic is what should the op do about a lame wolf. Maybe he should call the local sheriff and see if they can capture it or put it down. Or let it ravage livestock like a three legged wolf did here in Minnesota. It's on display at the historical society in Becker Co.

Predators have been plaguing farmers/ranchers since time began. THe govt does not owe you protection from predators, nor does it owe anyone else a job.

Farmers today are used to an enviroment without many predators (altho we've caused enough imbalances that we have lots of other predators instead on crops, etc)....that doesnt mean they cant start readjusting to a new norm. (Sound familiar? The economy has put alot of people in this position...how much sympathy are they getting?)

The eradication of predators...cougars, grizzlies, raptors, wolves...that took place around the turn of the century into the '40s would never be allowed today. Those animals are resources that belong to all Americans.

It's like trying to justify slaves because they made it alot more profitable to run plantations....some things are just wrong. Farmers and ranchers also need to adapt, just like the wildlife. Reintroduction of wolves didnt happen overnight.

9MMare
January 8, 2012, 02:09 AM
9mmmare, why is it that you are choosing to ignore the source that I sighted college boy?


Any one who thinks wolves are not dangerous to humans should prove it. why don't you go and try to make friends with a wolf pack alone and unarmed? I mean really try. Come back and tell us all about it.

wake up. wolves are dangerous predators, not only because they are smart, but also because they team up. Just because you don't hear of them slaughtering humans with bloodthirsty rabid rage on a daily basis does not mean they are cute cuddly friendly critters. Yes, If I was walking alone in the woods unarmed with a pack of wolves nearby I would be somewhat frightened. Any sane or smart person would and should be. Healthy fears and respect of dangerous things are what keeps people in general alive.




LOL, young AND a man! Wow, people need to pay more attention. The 'Mare' part should give people a clue.

Anyway, 'proving' wolves are dangerous? LOL, that's why we have the historic record of humans not being killed. Seriously, that's the saddest thing I've read in this thread yet....

OTOH, of course they are dangerous. That is one thing that makes them magnificent...smart, efficient predators that work as a team. I'm sorry if that's scary....but it doesnt mean they dont have a right to live. That's why they are WILDLIFE. Wildlife is not meant to interact with humans. They have the right to live and their interactions out in the wild keep nature in balance (optimally but we've messed with it too much).

But still....scared of an animal that's never been recorded killing people. I respect them and in their territory, would take precautions to alert them of my presence. Wolves arent known for stalking humans.

How about cars? They kill people everyday. Are you scared of them?

It makes me sad to think of wildlands that are completely tamed and sanitized so people can walk around without any fear or respect of the other life. Fence the lakes so no one can drown, fence the cliffs so no one falls off, get rid of the cougars so they dont chase down little Johnny who's parents should be watching him.

WIldlife isnt just an inconvenience. Respecting them and keeping places for them to live safely isnt putting them ahead of humans. Wildlife and the wild places are barometers of how healthy our planet is, period.

9MMare
January 8, 2012, 02:15 AM
Because out here we run cattle across vast areas and even ranchers who can still afford to have riders can't watch them all the time.
And the range isn't a free givaway. Grazing fees go up all the time and the number of days cattle can be on the range gets less.
Plus the Feds require expensive drift fences to be maintained and then taken down every fall.
A family ranch has a tough time getting much off the FS or BLM lands anymore.

I do understand. The reason you run them over vast areas is because the forage is so poor that it will only sustain a certain head/acre.

I dream of that lifestyle and want to see it preserved. But I dont approve of squeezing out the other life on the public ranges. That's just me, I know.

Raising cattle is very very expensive. I know, I used to do cutting and some roping. I love beef but think that it's price should reflect more of it's production costs. Hard to think that, since I cant afford it often anyway. It's a lifestyle I would never want to see vanish.

GWARGHOUL
January 8, 2012, 06:43 AM
why don't you go and try to make friends with a wolf pack alone and unarmed? I mean really try.

You know that's been done, right?

See, at least 15 years ago actually.. it was discovered that there are effective ways for farmers, ranchers and the like to keep wolves from preying on their livestock. Without killing anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Ellis_(wolf_researcher)

This guy was on top of it, and educated a few people along the way.

GWARGHOUL
January 8, 2012, 06:45 AM
When you are older you will realize that it means you got a liberal brainwashing and with effort you could work at Mcdonalds unless you are vegetarian.

Yes.. go tell that to all the engineers and such around here, and the rest of them in the world.

Its ok to disagree, its ok to have a argument.
But please, try to keep it relevant, intelligent and without ungrounded insults.

BikerRN
January 8, 2012, 06:54 AM
Predators have been plaguing farmers/ranchers since time began. THe govt does not owe you protection from predators, nor does it owe anyone else a job.

You're right.

The government doesn't owe me protection from predators.

All I ask is that they keep thier nose out of it when I decide to deal with a predator and not complain about how I do it.

Biker

tarosean
January 8, 2012, 07:50 AM
Shortly before shooting light was up, the wolves came. I heard the first wolf howl and the bugling instantly stopped. All the elk in the pastures we could see disappeared, and my Brother filled his tag with the last cow leaving the meadow. When we were field dressing it those wolves were close, and watching us. just inside the tree line. We caught a couple glimpses of them in the headlights. If I had been alone, I would not have felt safe. even as it was I felt uneasy. They might have been waiting for the gut pile but i doubt they would have waited so long if the trucks lights weren't on and the engine running with 4 of us out there working on that elk.
If I ever have the legal opportunity to shoot a wolf or more I sure will. There's a darn good reason our predecessors got rid of most of them.


Lucky you Ive only seen the Lobo in Zoo's. Even luckier that there are only 27 or so free range in AZ.... I lived in NM when they were released on the border.

Nuclear
January 8, 2012, 01:16 PM
Wow, one of our posters here saw a handful of the 27 wolves that live "free range" (what are they chickens?) in AZ! [sarcasm] There are undoubtedly a lot more wolves out there. Provided they haven't crossbred themselves out of existence again (what happened to the Red Wolves as I recall from college).

Wolves don't attack humans anymore because for generations we have hunted and killed all the wolves that exhibited that behavior. When we stop doing that, dangerous predators stop seeing us as another top predator and start attacking humans (like the mountain lions in California).

An earlier post showed all the losses to livestock from dogs and coyotes far outstrip wolves. You don't suppose that is because feral dogs, coyotes and hybrids are now endemic in this country, and have replaced the wolves in that niche?

An earlier post also referred to wolves as natural predators and humans as not part of nature - did we come from another planet or dimension?

d2wing
January 8, 2012, 01:24 PM
Lots of crazies here, for the person that asked, KSTP had some reports, check 11/10/2011. One guy had 13 500 lb calves killed since august this year. Check USDA claims. lots of them. I guess PETA has invaded here. Sorry, no unicorns here.

KodiakBeer
January 8, 2012, 02:08 PM
Wolves eradicate coyotes. Coyotes kill more livestock than any other predator. You're just trading wolves for coyotes. Relax!

d2wing
January 8, 2012, 02:27 PM
I agree with Nuclear and Kodiak. Coyotes are all over and dogs do more damage to poeple directly and kill both domestic and wild animals. When I was a kid our dogs started killing my brothers sheep. I had to control them as I was the only one they'd obey so my neighbor could shoot them. My brother was too sick to do it. I was a pretty heartbroken little kid. Not a college course.

cassandrasdaddy
January 8, 2012, 03:01 PM
how many is "lots". whats usda pay?

captain awesome
January 8, 2012, 04:37 PM
9mmare, i have never read such drivel as with your posts. It IS documented and you are CHOOSING to ignore it. Good luck to you sir, I am done here.

cassandrasdaddy
January 8, 2012, 05:08 PM
oh the irony

d2wing
January 8, 2012, 06:00 PM
PETA, ACLU and socialist? Of course you ignore references and spout propaganda. No more time for you ladies.

jcwit
January 8, 2012, 06:17 PM
Many heated opinions here.

Everything has its purpose here, otherwise God would not have put it here!

But then, who am I!

KodiakBeer
January 8, 2012, 06:29 PM
People in the lower 48 (aside from Northern MN) have just forgotten what it's like to live with wolves. People in the old days disliked wolves because they killed livestock, but nobody then thought of them as man-killers. That notion comes from Little Red Riding Hood...

As for livestock, I point out again that wolves kill coyotes on sight. Areas with wolves become coyote-free pretty rapidly, so you're just trading one canine predator for another.

The only documented death in the last 100 or so years from a wolf occurred about a year ago. A school teacher in Alaska (from the lower 48) who liked to jog in the wilderness while wearing an Ipod. If you run from predators they chase you. If you do so while wearing an Ipod you're unaware of being chased. It was only surprising that a wolf dragged her down before a bear did.

In the normal course of events, simply picking up a stick will keep wolves away.

School teacher killed by wolves:

http://www.adn.com/2010/03/09/1175725/wolf-blamed-in-death-of-villager.html

http://www.adn.com/2011/12/06/2205617/dna-samples-confirm-wolves-killed.html

d2wing
January 8, 2012, 08:15 PM
The USDA chart shown in that news report doesn't give a # but National Fish and Wildlife shows 959 confirmed kills in one year. Unconfirmed claims were much higher. Don't ask me, look it up. That is alot.

cassandrasdaddy
January 8, 2012, 08:25 PM
935 in how large an area? what types of critters?

cassandrasdaddy
January 8, 2012, 08:29 PM
PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE

In 2001, wolves were only responsible for 1 percent of the cattle and .4 percent of sheep killed by predators.

In 2001, wolves caused the death of approximately three of every 10,000 cattle and 134 of every 10,000 sheep that died from all causes last year in the three states (Source: Ed Bangs, USFWS)

Most Recent Cattle and Calf Losses in Montana
*Note: 1995 is the most recent itemized data available for Other Predators and Non-Predator deaths to Cattle and Calves. There were 10 Cattle confirmed killed in 2000 by wolves.

By WOLVES
1995: 3
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.)

By OTHER PREDATORS (coyote, dog, lion, bobcat, other predators)
1995: 2,200
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, MT)

By NON-PREDATORS (disease, calving, weather, poison, theft, unknown causes)
1995: 77,700
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, MT)

2000 Sheep and Lamb Losses In Montana

By Wolves
2000: 2
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.)

By OTHER PREDATORS (fox, coyote, dog, lion, bobcat, bear, eagle, unknown predators)
2000: 18,900
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, MT)

By NON-PREDATORS (disease, lambing complications, weather, poison, unknown causes)
2000: 66,000
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, MT)

2001 Livestock Losses in Idaho

By Wolves
10 Cattle
16 Sheep
1 Dog

2001 Wolves controlled in response

7 killed
5 relocated
(Source: USFWS 2001 Annual Wolf Report)

2000 Sheep Losses in Idaho

66% of sheep losses were due to disease, accidents, injuries and weather
34% were due to predator depredations.
Of these depredations, 69% were caused by coyotes, 9% by dogs, 6% by bears, 4% by mountain lions, 2% by foxes, 3% by unknown animals and only 0.4% by wolves.
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture)

Estimated annual livestock losses (Idaho):

Before wolf reintroduction: 12,314 cattle and 9,366 sheep
Since reintroduction: Between 1995 and 1998 in Idaho, wolves killed a total of 15 cattle and 54 sheep
(Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife statistics, January 1999)


Other Predator 2001 Statistics

In Montana Only:
Coyotes: 2,100 sheep and 12,200 lambs
Domestic dogs: 500 adult sheep and 600 lambs
Eagle: 100 sheep and 1,500 lambs
Bears: 200 sheep and 300 lambs
Mountain lions: 100 sheep and 300 lambs
Diseases, weather, poison, old age and other factors: 38,600 sheep and lambs
(Source: Scott McMillion, Bozeman Chronicle, April 2002)

Yellowstone area
Estimated annual livestock losses from all causes:
Before wolf reintroduction: 8,340 cattle and 12,993 sheep
After reintroduction: Between 1995-98 wolves killed 8 cattle and 84 sheep
(Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife statistics, January 1999)

Interesting Notes for Montana:

In Northwestern Montana, wolf predation accounts for less than .0004% of all predator-caused livestock deaths reported to Animal Damage Control (Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Statistics, January 1999)

From 1987 to 2000:
63 Sheep lost to wolves
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.)
480,500 Sheep lost to other predators
1,487,000 Sheep lost to non-predator causes
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, MT)

From 1987 to 2000:
83 Cattle lost to wolves
(Source: USFWS, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, USDA Wildlife Services. 2001. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2000 Annual Report. USFWS, Helena, MT.)

In 1995 alone:
600 Cattle lost to other predators
79,300 Cattle lost to non-predator causes
(Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Montana Field Office, Helena, MT)

In January 2002 - MONTANA ONLY
There were 2,450,000 cattle and 335,000 sheep and 84 wolves in the NW MT Recovery area
(Source: Montana Department of Livestock, USFWS 2001 Annual Wolf Report)

Final 2001 Counts for 3 state region
563 total wolves at end of 2001
138 Sheep lost to wolves
40 Cattle lost to wolves
6 Dogs lost to wolves
19 Wolves were killed, 18 others were moved

2002 so far:

(Source: Ed Bangs, USFWS)
34 wolves killed by lethal control actions
2 uncollared Gravelly Pack members near Dillon for sheep (? Amt)
5 Ninemile Pack near Missoula for 4 llamas, 9 sheep and lamb
3 Sheep Mountain + 1 Druid for one CONFIRMED calf
10 Whitehawk (S. Central Idaho) for two sheep, one calf
1 dispersed Chief Joe pack, male (North of Helena) for 9 lambs
1 (unidentified pack??) lone wolf near Livingston, MT. Shot by rancher/wolf feeding on calf
1 Washakie Pack (Wyoming) to reduce packÝs food requirements
2 Washakie Pack (Wyoming) for "menacing" livestock and 1 cow death, injured another cow
(Over last 2 years, whole pack has killed 3 calves)
1 Yearling (pack?) in Gros Venture drainage for 2 calves
1 Freeze Out Pack female yearling for pair of ewes in the Gravelly Range (killed by rancher)
2 (Not in an organized pack) near Fairfield, Idaho for 5 sheep (just South of Sawtooth Nat. Forest)
2 Ninemile Pack for several sheep
2 Castle Rock Pack (Boulder Pack) south of Avon, MT for several cattle
1 yearling (Pack?) in Gravelly Range for 1 calf (could be Freezeout Pack)



935? if you divide that by 12 states its 75 critters a year per state

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 9, 2012, 01:25 AM
WoW,,,,Just WOW, Ok first off I'll have to work backwards here a bit

KodiakBeer, that case that you referenced has yet to be proven that it was actually wolves as there were signs of several other predators in the area as well. He was close to a poorly operated garbage area which we all know up there is sheer stupidity in itself.

9mm, while you seem to be a very educated lady, you have a serious problem with your facts. Man has screwed this planet up so badly that, until mother nature shakes the fleas (humans) off her back, this planet will do nothing but go downhill. Reintroduction of the Wolf population to the Yellowstone Park was a serious hiccup (one that has already been admitted to by the officials in charge) because the wolves NATURAL food source is much lower in population than it's natural predation routine will allow for. Wolves were natures perfect population control. They kill more than they need to to feed on. I've SEEN them do this as has many others that have lived in nature not just studied it in some books. Their natural methods just do not conform with the current balance, or rather unbalanced predator/prey populations. A typical pack of 6 to 9 wolves will take down anywhere from 3 to 6 adult or calf elk a day if given the opportunity and even a pack of 9 can NOT consume anywhere near that amount. They are geared this way because, before man came around to screw things up, they were NEEDED to do this to keep the populations of white tail, elk, moose and others in the deer family in check to keep the balance of resources. That balance is now seriously out of whack in most places because of man. Introduction of these perfect hunting machines was fool hardy in the long run and is plainly seen by anyone with enough mind to look beyond the next year.

Now, on to the OP, several have answered correctly in more ways than one on your question. A few of them pointed out that that wolf you saw may have been injured. An injured/sick wolf is a VERY dangerous animal. They can not take down their natural prey and more than likely it was tossed from it's pack so it's alone. It WILL have less fear of a man and will more than likely view a lone individual as an easier target than it's natural prey. I personally would use a bit more caution when sharing the same area that it's been spotted in. As others have also stated, a .357 hit to the chest, head, or neck area would be sufficient to drop a wolf pretty easily. As would a 9mm. If you are confident and accurate with either is what the main goal here would be. I have killed many wolves and most all of them were with a .220swift so they really aren't that hard to kill.

The pictures in that link posted earlier (on the first page of the link) were indeed photoshopped. The largest wolf I have EVER taken (out of 35) was just over 146 pounds. The average of them was in the 100 to 115 pound ranges. I would imagine there are some 200 pound wolves out there MAYBE but I would highly doubt anyone will ever see one in the wild. I am no expert on photo shopping and such, but I would be hard pressed to believe anything like that without laying my hands directly on one. If you looked at the second page from that link, you would see the one draped across the jeep brushguard/hauler. THAT was a nice wolf and probably weighed in around 150 maybe 170.

Caribou (a member here) is probably more familiar with the largest of the wolf species given his location and job ( sustenance hunter Arctic) and he has run across many of them as well. They SEEM much heavier when you try to pick them up because of the slickness of their fur.

Anyway, hope this helps the OP in some reality of wolves. Just use your brain and be cautious.

doc2rn
January 9, 2012, 02:06 AM
To the OP, I would suggest a 30-30 rifle to dispatch the wounded animal. Any wounded animal is going to be more dangerous to you and yours in close proximity. I do believe the removal from the indagered species list was a good idea. Between, wolf, yote, and ferral dogs I think we have a big enough predatory population. Not to mention putting a wounded animal out of its missery is the right thing to do.

cassandrasdaddy
January 9, 2012, 09:23 AM
(one that has already been admitted to by the officials in charge)

source?

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/elk.htm

http://www.yellowstonepark.com/2007/01/elk-populations-decline/

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=36743

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/10016.htm

DM~
January 9, 2012, 10:59 AM
Areas with wolves become coyote-free pretty rapidly, so you're just trading one canine predator for another.


Really?? After living out where there were plenty of BOTH, wolves AND coyotes for 25 years of my life, i find that to NOT be true at all!

DM

lyrikz
January 9, 2012, 11:15 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/jcemerson/DSC07752-1.jpg

Next question.

tarosean
January 9, 2012, 11:22 AM
Next question.


yeah... how many miles into your hike/hunt/etc. will it take you to realize a hand cannon that weighs 100# wasnt the correct answer? :)

lyrikz
January 9, 2012, 11:23 AM
You guys and your weight. 66 ounces. Its not that bad at all. ;)

Sam1911
January 9, 2012, 12:34 PM
[I've taken quite a lot of pains to clean the non-High Road and homicidal/illegal crud out of this thread. I'd appreciate it y'all could keep it civil so it could live a while longer.]

CZguy
January 9, 2012, 01:41 PM
Mastredons were here on the earth years ago as well. Should we scientificly create a few in a laboratory using DNA from these creatures and reintroduce them to thier native homeland in the Hollywood hills?


Well..............some people would say that might be an improvement. :D

lyrikz
January 9, 2012, 01:47 PM
Sam, was that me and taro? Or did something get deleted? If it was me, i apologize, you cant disagree that gun would stop a wolf. lol

Back to the original topic.

Sam1911
January 9, 2012, 01:49 PM
Or did something get deleted?There was a lengthy side-discussion of issues other than wolves which lead to promotion of illegal violence and then a chorus of negative response to that. All of that has been deleted.

roundoff
January 9, 2012, 02:08 PM
Thanks for making the effort, Sam. I am really enjoying this thread and would hate to see it go.

To the OP, I would just say if you are already prepared for cougar, bear, etc., you probably don't need to make any drastic changes to your protection methods.

(full disclaimer: I have absolutely no experience with wolves, but I thought I should address your question if I was bothering to post.)

KodiakBeer
January 9, 2012, 02:19 PM
KodiakBeer, that case that you referenced has yet to be proven that it was actually wolves as there were signs of several other predators in the area as well. He was close to a poorly operated garbage area which we all know up there is sheer stupidity in itself.

Wrong. There were no other predators or tracks - read the 2nd link. The woman was killed by wolves. BUT, she is the only person killed by wolves in at least 100 years. And the circumstances were such that she practically killed herself.

Sam1911
January 9, 2012, 02:25 PM
Since I took the time to read this whole thread, let me just comment on this:

My father and two brothers and I were hunting in the white mountains in AZ last year and found a spot with a large herd of elk, witnessed a spectacular display from less than 50 yards when two large bulls were having it out. There were no less than seven other bulls bugling in the area, it was one of my favorite days of hunting I have ever had. Shortly before shooting light was up, the wolves came. I heard the first wolf howl and the bugling instantly stopped. All the elk in the pastures we could see disappeared, and my Brother filled his tag with the last cow leaving the meadow. When we were field dressing it those wolves were close, and watching us. just inside the tree line. We caught a couple glimpses of them in the headlights. If I had been alone, I would not have felt safe. even as it was I felt uneasy. They might have been waiting for the gut pile but i doubt they would have waited so long if the trucks lights weren't on and the engine running with 4 of us out there working on that elk.


WHAT an incredible experience! What a blessing to have gotten to see that and interact with them in that way. You are incredibly fortunate, and you have something to share with your great-grand-kids of one time you got to participate in REAL LIFE on nature's grand stage.

Finished reading Robert Morgan's Boone: A Biography (http://www.amazon.com/Boone-Biography-Shannon-Ravenel-Books/dp/1565126157/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326136629&sr=8-1) recently and it really spoke to this. The tension between loving the wilderness and those in it, and destroying it as we explore it, use it, and exploit it. Daniel Boone himself was haunted by the paradox throughout his later life as he could see that the places he'd "opened" were gone because of the intrusion he'd been such a part of making happen.

He spent his whole life fighting wolves and Indians. And at the end of his life he couldn't stand to be in a place that had no wolves and Indians.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 9, 2012, 05:13 PM
Wrong. There were no other predators or tracks - read the 2nd link. The woman was killed by wolves. BUT, she is the only person killed by wolves in at least 100 years. And the circumstances were such that she practically killed herself.

Sorry Kodiak, the link you put up looked familiar and admittedly I didn't click it. I thought it was the one about the Teaching assistant that was killed in Canada a few years ago. My apologies.

KodiakBeer
January 9, 2012, 05:20 PM
Sorry Kodiak, the link you put up looked familiar and admittedly I didn't click it.

No problem. I don't think that event got much press outside of Alaska, but few animal killings do unless a celebrity (Treadwell) is involved.

tarosean
January 9, 2012, 11:43 PM
WHAT an incredible experience! What a blessing to have gotten to see that and interact with them in that way. You are incredibly fortunate, and you have something to share with your great-grand-kids of one time you got to participate in REAL LIFE on nature's grand stage.

This is my point of view. I posted earlier in this thread about having only seen the native Mexican Grey (Lobo) in Zoo's. I would hate for the day to come that my kids/grandkids/great grands cannot see some of these animals in the wild. Nature is an amazing thing that we should cherish it before we destroy it all...

I am not against hunting wolves or managing their numbers. I feel they have just as much right to be here as we do.

bandk
January 9, 2012, 11:55 PM
Re:
The OP saw one wolf, one time. He does not need to add any howitzers to his arsenal. He needs to be aware they are there and keep good track of his pets if he wants to keep them around for long. As far as his family, he'd be better off to be concerned about the icy roads and other accidents doing them harm as statistics have shown the odds of a human getting attacked by a wolf or a pack of wolves in the lower 48 is lower than being hit by a meteorite. Odds are he is more likely to be injured by the gun he is carrying to protect himself than he is to be attacked by wolves. Folks need to be realistic and level headed instead of believing in fairy tales.

With the lifting of wolves from the endangered species list, there will be more seasons and more control on wolf populations. Their numbers, once seasons and control is established will never reach problem numbers again in the lower 48. Once they are hunted again, they will quickly learn to avoid humans or die. This is reality, not Little Red Riding Hood.


reply:

I figured as much but wanted to know if others felt the same. I'm wondering, though, where is the pack?

bandk
January 10, 2012, 12:11 AM
To the OP...

I wouldn't change a damn thing. This is the first time you've seen one, but I'd place a large bet that they've been there before and you never knew it. Just be smart about the obvious (trash, game entrails, pets) and you've got nothing to fear, regardless of what some of these creeps are preaching.

If anything, be joyous in the fact that your SO was lucky enough to catch a glimpse of one of the most elusive creatures in North America.
Thought so

barnetmill
January 10, 2012, 12:55 AM
Wolves have and do still attack people world wide:
John James Audubon ... reported an attack involving 2 Negroes. ... the men were traveling through a part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in winter. Due to the wild animals in the area the men carried axes on the shoulders as a precaution. While traveling through a heavily forested area, they were attacked by a pack of wolves. Using their axes, they attempted to fight off the wolves. Both men were knocked to the ground and severely wounded. One man was killed. The other dropped his ax and escaped up a tree. There he spent the night. The next morning the man climbed down from the tree. The bones of his friend lay scattered in the snow. Three wolves lay dead. He gathered up the axes and returned home with news of the event. This incident occurred about 1830. (Audubon, J.J.. and Bachman,J,: The Quadrupeds of North America. 3 volumes. New York, 1851 - 1854)
Other attacks: http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html Today attacks on humans are extremely rare.
As wolves, coyotes, and dog hybrids become more common such incidents will become a little more common.
For my place to drive off coyotes I will obtain some traditional southern farm bulldogs with large teeth that were originally developed to kill predators in europe that were brought to the the US during colonial times. The original reason for cutting the ears and tails on mastiff type dogs was related to fighting wolves. Now it is done for looks. The theory was if one wolf can grab the tail he can hold the dog while the rest of the pack shreds the dog.

red-demon652
January 10, 2012, 11:37 AM
Remember a shotgun blast to the face will instantly stop any attacker. Taurus Judge.

1911Tuner
January 11, 2012, 06:38 AM
Gray Wolves can get pretty big. They get bigger in captivity because they eat better and lay around more.

Here are some shots of Alaskan Malamutes. Malamutes are genetically the closet thing to wolves in dogdom...1/5th of 1% difference. The smaller, lighter Siberian Husky is 1/2 of 1% removed from the Gray Wolf.

Both breeds exhibit strong wolf-like behavior.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/Hugs.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/DancinPup.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/BigPup.jpg

Here is a 125-pound Malamute doing what he was engineered for. Freighting. A 100-pound Alaskan can outpull a much larger, heavier Saint Bernard.

You walk a Malamute on a leash only because he allows you to. Trust me on this.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/Pull.jpg

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 11, 2012, 11:45 AM
LOL 1911, you don't walk them, they walk you!

KodiakBeer
January 11, 2012, 02:56 PM
I can do better than that. I used to own a wolf. I got her as a "rescue" back in the early 90's from a place in Palmer, Alaska (back when that was legal). I used to take her hunting when my son was young and she'd carry up to 50 pounds of fileted deer meat in her pack.

She was a female and weighed about 80 pounds.

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/InTheClouds2-1.jpg

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/kodiakbeer/InTheClouds.jpg

barnetmill
January 11, 2012, 03:45 PM
1911tuner: Gray Wolves can get pretty big. They get bigger in captivity because they eat better and lay around more.

Here are some shots of Alaskan Malamutes. Malamutes are genetically the closet thing to wolves in dogdom...1/5th of 1% difference. The smaller, lighter Siberian Husky is 1/2 of 1% removed from the Gray Wolf.Wolves vary quite a bit depending on where they are found.
Humans differ about 2% from apes and have 23 versus 24 chromosome pairs for apes and were separated no sooner than 5 million years ago and it could be longer.
Dogs are wolves and now days are classed by biologists as a grey wolf subspecies. The Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists in 1993 reclassified the dog from its separate species designation of Canis familiaris to Canis lupus familiaris. The Timber wolf is Canis lupus nubilus, the Mackenzie or Tundra wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis), the dog (Canis lupus familiaris ), etc., fall under the genetic umbrella of the gray wolf: Canis lupus. http://www2.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm Apes and people are still not only separate species, but separate genera.

1911Tuner
January 11, 2012, 06:46 PM
Yep, barnet. They do.

Kodiak...Until she died a year ago from sudden onset kidney failure, I had a 25/27 Husky/Wolf hybrid. Best dog that ever sucked air and munched milk bones. Cried like a kid when I lost her, and I miss her every day.

vaherder
January 12, 2012, 06:31 AM
I have been a sheep rancher for almost 10 years now. I have been training herding dogs and livestock guardian dogs even longer

Even the most foo foo dog carried in bag has DNA that is still 99% wolf.

Wolf attacks on humans are incredibly rare and were probably the result of human stupidity.

The closest dog to a wolf is not a sib, Malmute, GSD, Terv, Mal, or Shiloh Shepherd but a Border Collie from working lines not foo foo beauty contest AKC lines. Watch one work with eye notice how the dog controls the sheep with its intense stare and crouch just like wolf. what separates the wolf from domestic dog is prey drive. Border Collies have the most prey drive of any domestic dog breed by a significant margin with the rest of the herding breeds following behind.

Wolves only take what they need they dont kill for fun or sport. If a rancher or turkey farmer is suffering these kind of losses then the problem is domestic or feral dogs. Although sometimes coyotes will teach their yooung how to kill on stock. Another issue for ranchers and poultry farmers is losses to ravens and other large birds.

You have nothing to fear from a wolf. Back last Fall I was Idaho helping a friend work his sheep ranch. His place and leased lands are over a hundred thousand acres and makes my farm look like a urban townhouse lot in comparison. He uses livestock guardian dogs and keeps his sheep and cattle losses to a minimum. Livestock guardian dogs and proper electric fencing and other anti predator tactics work extremely well. On a break my 3 herding dogs and I went for a walk and met part of a wolfpack up close and personal. I am alpha so I had my three dogs lie down behind me and the wolf alpha and I looked each other over. We had a stare down contest. He turned away. Anyone who tells you not to do this with domestic dogs doesnt have a clue. If you turn away first you are telling the dog, wolf or coyote he or she is alpha and thats not a good thing. Ny dogs ahd a great time moving thousands of sheep instead of several hundred.

I dont kill predators unless I absolutely have to. I have eliminated domestic and feral dogs but not coyotes and mountain lions. My LGDs killed a mountain lion over a year ago. I kill a pitbull for looking at me the wrong way. Reducing the predator population causes the prey populations to grow out of control. As a result you see an increase in tick borne diseases like Lyme disease especially in the NE. Deer ticks are the primary cause. Increased deer population increased deer tick population and more Lyme disease for humans and dogs. Ask someone who suffers from chronic Lyme disease if they want more predators? I have treated my dogs for Lyme disease. Increased deer popualtions also mean deer have moved into the suburbs and cities eating destroying billions of dollarss of ornamental plants and causing thousands of collisons. Ask someones whose car ahds been destroyed by a deer or someone who lost a family member to deer/car collison about predators?

LGDs can also guard poultry I know a number of turkey farmers in VA and PA who use them. I have many friends who raise cattle throughout the US who keep their losses to predators to the minimum using LGDs and proper predator management technigues that doesnt involve the slaughter of the predators.

Predators have a vital role in the management of deer, poultry and livestock. Wolves usually go after the weak and diseaseed sheep or cattle first which is a good thing.

I expect gray wolves to reach VA soon sometime in next 5 t 7 years from MI. They found a red wolf in amongst the coyotes they killed over in Montgomery County MD not to long ago. It will reduce the deer population a mangeable level, keep small foo foo dogs and unruly young yuppy human spawn in check

Man has always feared the wolf because the wolf is man's top competitor for prey. I beleive the smartest species on this planet is the domestic dog who ahs trained humans to feed it, house it, provide entertainment, and pick up its poop. I don't fear wolves and would rather meet them a wondering domestic pitbull anyday. Wolves get to move on. Pitbull wont.

cassandrasdaddy
January 12, 2012, 10:35 AM
i agree about the border collies. i'm on my third one. and hes a pistol. i've played heck keeping them from killing my chickens. this ones got it it seems. just like he protects "his" car and "his" kids he has decided that my hens are his too and he takes care of them . it takes a while to get him to claim things as his but once he does they are protected. i was a bit worried about him and yotes since hes small. but the dead yote in the yard last week tells me he can take care of himself. wish i'd seen that

JustinJ
January 12, 2012, 11:16 AM
My father has an awesome border collie that is a great dog but we have little rivalry between us as i have a heeler. Border collies are great for sheep but if you have to move cattle it takes more than a stare. My heeler is 65 lbs with a huge head, barrel chest and very protective attitude so he makes a great guard dog.

Another dog i find very interesting is the Carolina dog.

VT Deer Hunter
January 12, 2012, 03:09 PM
In Vermont, i guess wolves along with mountain lions lived there and not the VT F&G said in 09 that there are mountain lions in Vermont again. And the VTers had known that for a while. And my uncle had a friend of his drop a of all thing a wolf of at our camp. And the wolf was shot in i guess central VT. And the person who shot it thought it was a coyote and they look so similar. But the VT F&G doesnt want to say they are there. I dont know if it was just a single wolf that wondered in or what. But if you look in the VT F&G hunting rule book it lists mountain lions as a non game animal.

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2012, 04:15 PM
One problem is, once you officialy admit there are wolves or mountain lions in your state, all kinds of expensive and restrictive Federal regulations kick in.

barnetmill
January 12, 2012, 04:40 PM
Relative to predators it can sort of depend on what you are doing when they are around also. I remember a few times being outside of my house doing pushups at about 10:30 at night and a grey fox would come out of the creek bed while doing his nightly rounds and sit and watch me. Surprising how big a fox looks when you are no higher than he is. If it had been a coyote or something larger I would have instantly got up since an attack from a larger predator is more likely when you are not standing. Some years we believe there had been a lion wandering around and black bear and feral hogs live within a few miles. Never heard of anyone ever getting attacked by any of these. Dogs and rabid raccoons are probably a bigger threat. I live in the extreme NW of FL. For the OP question I think any handgun with a large magazine capacity that you can readily carry and hit with is fine. The main thing is a gun will likely give you an alpha posture that is most important when dealing with a mammalian carnivore.

Vern Humphrey
January 12, 2012, 04:47 PM
The main thing is a gun will likely give you an alpha posture that is most important when dealing with a mammalian carnivore.
That is precisely the point Phil Shoemaker makes when discussing handguns for grizzley country -- they give you the confidence to communicate to the bear, "I am not bothering you, but if you bother me, I will hurt you bad."

1911Tuner
January 12, 2012, 08:28 PM
One problem is, once you officialy admit there are wolves or mountain lions in your state, all kinds of expensive and restrictive Federal regulations kick in.

That's very likely why Montgomery, Randolph, and Davidson Counties don't want to own up to Red Wolves in the Uwharries...but they're there. I've seen'em. So far, they've been very shy and retiring. I hope that lasts.

Border Collies use Wolf prey moves to herd, and the only thing that's been bred out is the final kill...but I meant that Mals and Sibes are genetically closest to Wolves. The others are about 2% removed...including Border Collies. Want to see just how close to a Wolf one of the sled dogs are? Let a pack of'em go feral for 6 months.

The prey drive is very much alive in Malamutes and Huskies, and even many family pets will kill cats and smaller dogs...even the ones that they've been raised with. That's part of their selective breeding. The kill wasn't bred out the way it was in Border Collies. Sometimes arctic dogs have to forage for their own food, so it was left alone.

The main thing is a gun will likely give you an alpha posture that is most important when dealing with a mammalian carnivore.

This.

Predators aren't at all interested in picking a fight that they think they might lose, or in fighting with another animal that they feel can hurt them. A serious physical injury is a death sentence. Even a moderate injury is bad news. If they sense that you can do them a hurt, they're more apt to leave you alone. Note that if you encounter a female bear with cubs close by, there's a completely different set of rules in play, and all bets are off.

barnetmill
January 13, 2012, 12:59 AM
The prey drive is very much alive in Malamutes and Huskies, and even many family pets will kill cats and smaller dogs...even the ones that they've been raised with. That's part of their selective breeding. The kill wasn't bred out the way it was in Border Collies. Sometimes arctic dogs have to forage for their own food, so it was left alone.
Many of the older traditional working dogs will forage for food. Dogs are always hungry. On a dog forum I frequent it was mentioned that their bulldogs would kill red hawks that were going for their pups and the parents at times would feed the dead hawks to the pups if they did not eat the hawk themselves. Most dogs will chase (prey drive) and bite (trying to kill), especially when in a pack. Some are better at it than others. Pound for pound the terriers are some of the best at killing on their own since that is specifically what these breeds were developed for. Relative to sled dogs owned by Inuit (Eskimos) I talked to someone that saw them used in a polar bear hunt in canada. i wonder how well they would survive if they had to compete with wolves. I thinks wolve, coyotes, and foxes all have the ideal anatomy and behavior for survival for their respective size ranges. Nature will not have it any other way.
By the way some border collies will kill other trespassing dogs. There was a sad thread at another forum about someone that was forced to kill his rescue border collie after repeated killings by it of other dogs which he did very efficiently. It was a most unpleasant experience for his owner that was even more traumatic than returning the small dead poodle to its owning family and listening to their adolescent daughter start bawling her head off.
Dogs are really only domesticated wolves and wolf like behavior still exists in them.

vaherder
January 13, 2012, 01:07 PM
Final kill has not been bred out. Human ie me is the alpha and as alpha I make the kill. I dont know what my dogs think when I dont they just keep on working their 12 to 14 hour days for less then the minimum wage. A couple might have not entered the country legally. My herding dogs will kill prey if I allowed it. I had a rogue sheep who wanted go through me to get to the hay. My best dog saw it and the 200+ lb sheep jumped in the air about 6ft and she at almost 40lbs went up in the air after it. Snatched it in mid air and took it to the ground. Sheep hit the ground dying because she broke the neck.

Again all dogs being they working Border Collies and Polish Tatras or mini Yorkies are 99% wolf per their DNA. Scientific fact. No 2% about it. A working heridng dog of any breed is closer to the wolf then a Malmute or Sib. Yeah they look closest to their wolf ancestors but a herding dog is still the closest. Many Idatrod competiors will use working Border Collies to breed
in drive and determination along with speed.

Sorry in working lines of the herding breeds the final kill has not been bred out. DOnt know where you got this load of PETA propaganda. Anyone who depepnds on a dog to move sheep wants as much prey drive and killer as possible in the dog and lines. Its a lot easier manage this a dog with extreme prey drive then to try to gin up one who doesnt ahve the drive. A dog with extreme prey drive will make it through the training and want to spend 14hrs in 3 ft + of snow in temps in the high teens in a blizzard moving sheep so they
will survive the storm like in the WInter of 2010 here in VA.

99% of dog owners have never seen a real working herding dog. Thye couldnt handle one. They are too smart and too driven. The AKC and conformation/beauty pageants ahve destroyed the working herding dog. Dogs would be better off if the AKC went belly up. They aren't in it for the dogs but they are in it for the bucks.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 13, 2012, 03:21 PM
Final kill has not been bred out. Human ie me is the alpha and as alpha I make the kill.

vaherder, That is about the biggest load I have ever seen. Could you please reference where it has been shown that the "alpha" makes the "kill"? It has been my experience (seen MANY kills by packs of both feral dogs as well as wolves) that EACH in the pack shares in the take down and kill. Usually whichever one was on lead point at the strike. And that is NOT always the alpha. It is whichever one happened to be at the right place at the right time. I've bred and trained hunting dogs most of my life. Coon and Rabbit hounds for the most part. Several of my rabbit dogs have had massive foot speed and would at times catch the rabbit. Do you think they would NOT kill that rabbit before delivering it to me? Nope! They would bring me the rabbit dead as a hammer. I still have a couple (patch hounds) that I call "shell savers" because 3 out of 10 times they CATCH the rabbit.

As far as your reference to the "kill" being bred out, ALL of my protection dogs would kill in a flat second to PROTECT me. Don't care if it was a 200 pound man or a 700 pound Brown Bear. They see me in trouble and you could bet your last dollar that whatever it was that was a threat towards me will have a VERY bad day. The "kill" is in EVERY predatory animal. Some may be more docile than others but given certain situations, they will go native in a heart beat. How else can you explain feral dogs? Given that situation, they will go native and pack up. It's been a problem for several years now. You trying to say that they are all boarder collies?

vaherder
January 17, 2012, 02:50 PM
Obviously you haven't really observed wolf kills. The alpha as pack leader makes all the decisions. The kill is orchestrated and approved by the alpha.
The rest of the pack know their respective jobs. The alpha also decides who eats first and the order the pack eats in. The rest of the pack will not kill w/o the alpha's approval. Yes it is a community effort but the alpha makes all the decisions. One has to be aware of both the verbal and non verbal communication patterns in dogs and wolves. How they carry their tail etc tells you a great deal. Also knowing what their barks, yips and growls mean.

When you take a young 4 to 5mo herding pup on sheep for the first time it will gather the sheep to you just like its wolf ancestors cast out around the herd. The pup with no training will bring the sheep to the human. And yeah it expects you to kill it.

Feral dogs do not have the same pack dynamics as wolves.

I never said kill was bred out on the contrary in a herding dog we want the kill. I want big time prey drive. I want a pup who will kill sheep and that is his or her primary motivation because that dog will work for me for 14 hrs or more. That dog will also make it through training. I have the scars from training young pups and preventing the kill. Have I had o stitch up sheep yep and I have lost a few sheep to training accidents over the years. Most times its the sheep running into a fence post. Its the cost of training a good herding dog. My dogs are never trained with food or toys as a reward. Their reward is it pleases me. No clicker training because it doesn't work at 800+ yards. i dont have the arm to accurately throw a treat to my dog when she does a great job rounding up the 500 sheep and getting the stragglers a mile + from where I am standing.

Remember wolves and herding dogs are closest in their behaviors.

Sorry coon hounds and rabbit hounds are not herding dogs. A good herding dog is a barely reformed stock killer. Herding dogs are typically the most intelligent of all the dog breeds. They have to be to move stock. They rate the stock they are moving and act accordingly. One group of sheep or cattle may prefer a dog working close but a change in the weather ie wind speed increasing will change things. Dog will have to give the stock more space. My dogs are trained to sort out one sheep take it down w/o injury and hold it for me so i can check it out or give it meds etc. My dogs know enough to recognize when I give a wrong command and do the right thing.

I don't fear wolves. The wolves are going to go their way and let me go on mine as long as I am not threatening their pups. i drop a pit bull or feral dog when it looks at me wrong.

lyrikz
January 17, 2012, 02:56 PM
"i drop a pit bull or feral dog when it looks at me wrong"

Drop my pitbull, please.

I would love to see a video of one of your dogs, tackling a sheep and holding the sheep without hurting it.

cassandrasdaddy
January 17, 2012, 03:12 PM
When you take a young 4 to 5mo herding pup on sheep for the first time it will gather the sheep to you just like its wolf ancestors cast out around the herd. The pup with no training will bring the sheep to the human

funny you should say that. my border collie has minimal training. i was on a back road when we came on some loose cattle. i got out and started moving em towards the hole in the fence, he came out the window and got right after em took over all i had to do was watch and fix the fence farmer showed up and watched. dog was prouder than a 3 testicled tomcat. i want to get him out more. he was having fun

paintballdude902
January 17, 2012, 03:25 PM
any thing that would take down a cougar would take down a wolf

KodiakBeer
January 17, 2012, 03:37 PM
Obviously you haven't really observed wolf kills. The alpha as pack leader makes all the decisions. The kill is orchestrated and approved by the alpha.
The rest of the pack know their respective jobs.

Actually, the alpha's are the breeding male and female. The alpha male may or may not be the lead in hunting. In most cases he would be, simply because he would be a large mature male, but often enough another animal is the lead hunter. Another animal (often an old animal with a long memory, male or female) will take charge during seasonal migrations. Den sites are generally protected by yet another mature animal, while the mother hunts for food.

Alpha doesn't mean what most people think it does. Wolf packs are actually quite complex and various animals take the lead role in various activities. In a small pack of 4 to 6 mature animals, the alpha male might be the lead in most activities, but in larger packs various animals take on the many jobs.

Certaindeaf
January 17, 2012, 03:52 PM
Just don't dress up as a sheep when you go trick or treating and you'll be fine.

JustinJ
January 17, 2012, 03:53 PM
Obviously you haven't really observed wolf kills. The alpha as pack leader makes all the decisions. The kill is orchestrated and approved by the alpha.
The rest of the pack know their respective jobs. The alpha also decides who eats first and the order the pack eats in. The rest of the pack will not kill w/o the alpha's approval. Yes it is a community effort but the alpha makes all the decisions. One has to be aware of both the verbal and non verbal communication patterns in dogs and wolves. How they carry their tail etc tells you a great deal. Also knowing what their barks, yips and growls mean.

You do realize wolves often times survive for long periods on mice only? If you can link me a vidoe of wolves holding mice down waiting for the alpha to arrive to perform the finishing kill i'd love to see them.

The old convential understanding of wolf packs is extemely flawed in that it is based on unatural groups of unrelated captive wolves that were forced together. The hiearchy that develops in such a setting is very different from that of a natural pack. Wolf packs are actually a nuclear unit consisting of a breeding pair and their offspring but do adopt unrelated juveniles on occasion. Leadership of the pack is actually shared by the breeding male and female and both will actually take submissive and dominant postures with each other. This notion of males fighting for dominance is fiction. When the young become old enough they simply leave the pack and seek a mate to start their own. In a real wolf pack the young fight each other for their positions as do the young in all species. The alpha does not determine their positions or what order they eat in. The cohesion of packs does vary somehwat from region to region and packs have been observed to briefly join together but it is not common. Feral dogs do not mimic a wolf pack because they are not generally related.

My best dog saw it and the 200+ lb sheep jumped in the air about 6ft and she at almost 40lbs went up in the air after it. Snatched it in mid air and took it to the ground. Sheep hit the ground dying because she broke the neck.

Now that had me laughing. Mainly because I knew a guy who claimed the exact same thing about one of his border collies but his supposedly took down a deer. He had a reputation for inventing stories.

cassandrasdaddy
January 17, 2012, 04:43 PM
had a 35 pound border collie lab mix and a 85 pound lab husky mix. they would kill deer and it was the border collie that did the kills. she would whup the bigger dog as well. when she got old she would lure it under wifes suv to fight where she could stand erect huskie mix couldn't stand and took a licking

Henhouse1
January 17, 2012, 04:54 PM
Stinky bad Photo Shop!

HarcyPervin
January 17, 2012, 05:54 PM
The cohesion of packs does vary somehwat from region to region and packs have been observed to briefly join together but it is not common

That reminds me, did anyone catch the media frenzy around the "Superpack" in Siberia last winter. The reports were that multiple packs had joined together in a group of 400 animals and were targeting everything in sight. I had never heard of anything like that but it was reported that during extremely harsh winters that wolf packs would cooperatively hunt. A small pack in my area wouldn't bother me, they're around when we hunt, but that many predators, hunting together/hunting in the same area, might change my mind.

Freedom_fighter_in_IL
January 18, 2012, 04:12 AM
Obviously you haven't really observed wolf kills. The alpha as pack leader makes all the decisions. The kill is orchestrated and approved by the alpha.

I honestly stopped reading at that sentence because it showed me that you haven't a true clue. Unlike you with your books, I have been in the wilds of Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Canada, as well as a few places in Europe and have witnessed first hand how the wolf hunts and takes down prey.

Further showings of your lack of first hand knowledge was you saying that the wolf doesn't take down more than they need. MOST of the hunts that I have seen, the packs would take down MUCH more than they needed. It's hardwired into their DNA to do so. As I stated earlier, they were natures population control and kept predator/prey balances very well. Unlike a lot of your African predators, the Wolf has very few, if any, competition for their kills. A Brown bear MAY try to take a kill away from a small pack but even that is highly doubtful. So there is no reason for the multiple kills other than that is what they were designed, and quite well I may add, to do.

You trying to equate herding dogs to wolves is much the same as someone trying to equate a quarter horse to a thoroughbred. It just doesn't add up to the same animal in any way whatsoever. They each share much on the scale, but there is still a TON of differences that come to play. I've seen toy poodles with more attitude than most of the Boarder Collies we had. And we had several growing up. Was my dads favorite breed of dog. Only time i'd ever see one get it's fur up was whenever they would see a fox out in the field. Or whenever my dad would raise his voice or hand towards any of us kids. I will admit they can get frisky when they see a kid in trouble. Just in their nature as it is with most dog breeds. ANY dog can be trained to show that killer instinct. They ALL have it. Just some are more domesticated than others and aren't that ill tempered. Piss them off and you will find out just how instinctive ANY dog can be.

tarosean
January 18, 2012, 05:06 AM
99% of dog owners have never seen a real working herding dog. Thye couldnt handle one. They are too smart and too driven. The AKC and conformation/beauty pageants ahve destroyed the working herding dog. Dogs would be better off if the AKC went belly up. They aren't in it for the dogs but they are in it for the bucks.

There is no widespread need now-a-days for the dogs that had real jobs and were specifically bred for those tasks. Society changed quite some time ago.. Fact is 99% of dogs are nothing more than companions.

AKC is much more than a beauty pageant. Course you probably wouldnt know anything about all those field/tracking/herding/gun titles, etc. In addition, AKC is only a registry they do not control what people breed, they only ensure that they are pure bred.

rbernie
January 18, 2012, 10:21 AM
This one has suffered from way too much thread drift - let's move along.

If you enjoyed reading about "Wolf" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!