I personally have nothing against wolves, maybe because I live where there are no more wolves, or maybe because I was raised with a wolf/huskey dog growing up. If they are killing live stock thats one thing, but to hate them just because there wild, you might as well hate every bear, lion, coyote, and every other predator in the states. They have all attacked livestock and humans. I see no point to this thread except the op's personal hatred toward wolves.
Cry wolf!
- Thread starter cliffy
- Start date
- Status
leathermanwave
Member
I agree that wolves rarely attack humans but the sure can ruin hunting in an area.
That's not because of wolves here in Idaho it is because the Utahan's depleting our Mule deer herds with their party hunts.
In the back country where there are no roads to hunt or where the four wheelers are not allowed the wolves are the only thing moving the game around for for the lone hunter off the beaten path.
Soon as everyone is good and scared the wolves will get totally delisted and we'll have more targets. I am all for more targets so don't be bad mouthing the reintroduction of dinosaurs
TCB in TN
Member
Sorry Bud, most folks can handle nature, its a combination of foolish nature is "right" attitudes and our Gooberments insistence on "helping" nature that gives us so many problems.
Re-introducing a large, agressive top predator into an area with a large number of domestic animals is a poor idea to start with. Doing it and tying the hands of the ranchers is just plain wrong! I am a firm believer that humans can co-exist with the vast majority of nature, but humans and certain parts of nature just don't mix, and folks oughtta think things through enough to understand that.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
As far as the reintroduction and the protective laws, in cow country, never forget that there are many people in the private sector who hate the idea of allowing ranching on public land--and they have sympathizers in the employ of the USF&WS.
One example: I picked up a copy of the Sierra Club's magazine, back some fifteen years ago. In it was an article about a hiking trip in Navajo country. Now, here they are on Navajo land, as guests, and some of the group got all upset when they saw hoofprints of domestic livestock. "Ruining the land!" and all that nonsense. Well, folks, they lobby and they vote and they can't tell sheepdip from wild honey when it comes to knowledge of any sort of agribusiness. But they are a big help to the citified folks in Congress who pass dumb-butt laws.
Sure, I doubt that a wolf or a pack would attack an adult human. But I don't see why it would be highly improbable that a child would be immune. Me, I started running the boonies when I was seven years old, at which time I wasn't so big that I would not have looked like a potential supper--but in 1941, central Texas was kinda short on wolves, bears and mountain lions.
My attitude is real simple: I have an inherent right to make my environs safe for me, my familily, my livestock and my pets. When I'm left alone, I'm the most harmless guy you can imagine. If my little chunk of world is threatened, it's a whole different deal and I don't care if the predator has two legs or four.
One example: I picked up a copy of the Sierra Club's magazine, back some fifteen years ago. In it was an article about a hiking trip in Navajo country. Now, here they are on Navajo land, as guests, and some of the group got all upset when they saw hoofprints of domestic livestock. "Ruining the land!" and all that nonsense. Well, folks, they lobby and they vote and they can't tell sheepdip from wild honey when it comes to knowledge of any sort of agribusiness. But they are a big help to the citified folks in Congress who pass dumb-butt laws.
Sure, I doubt that a wolf or a pack would attack an adult human. But I don't see why it would be highly improbable that a child would be immune. Me, I started running the boonies when I was seven years old, at which time I wasn't so big that I would not have looked like a potential supper--but in 1941, central Texas was kinda short on wolves, bears and mountain lions.
My attitude is real simple: I have an inherent right to make my environs safe for me, my familily, my livestock and my pets. When I'm left alone, I'm the most harmless guy you can imagine. If my little chunk of world is threatened, it's a whole different deal and I don't care if the predator has two legs or four.
Harve Curry
Member
IdahoLT1
Member
Im kinda on the fence on the wolf issue. My biggest problem is that the Feds stepped in to run State wildlife. Theres something called the 10th ammendment that allows States to run their own wildlife programs(more specifically to run any program that the federal govt. doesnt/cant/wont) based on THEIR interests, not the pencil pushers in DC or residents of other states. I would be much happier if Idaho residents voted on whether they wanted to reintrouduce a non native species or keep things the way they are.
And the bison numers are ~1 million(acoording to some reports) in the lower 48. But about 3/4 are farmed/ranched.
And the bison numers are ~1 million(acoording to some reports) in the lower 48. But about 3/4 are farmed/ranched.
I don't think we "own" the world. And saying we are "better" than wolves is just anthropocentric. Of course you say this, your a human.
I think you know how I'd feel if my children were killed by wolves. But I'm not going to over protect them. They are going to learn to grow a pair.
Should we kill the bald eagle, they can snatch a small child.
Should we kill cougar, black bear, grizzly, wolverine, poisonous snakes.
Wouldn't homicide be more efficient than suicide for population control? Sorry, but I'm not going to do either of these (against your wishes).
Now the argument against wolves due to problems with ranching is a good one. This is a tough situation and there needs to be some management here.
But being anti-wolf because them may kill us is just sissy. And it sounds familiar...
"lets destroy wolves and outlaw reintroduction because they may kill us" sounds a lot like "lets destroy guns and outlaw guns because they may kill us?"
wyocarp
Member
Caribou, what works in Alaska isn't always going to be the same in the lower 48. Just like the grizzly. I am good friends (actually graduated with) an Alaskan hunting guide and we were talking just last month about the differences between grizzly in the lower 48 and grizzly in Alaska. We agreed that typically they respond to the presence of people differently with grizzly in the lower 48 being more unpredictable and more aggressive towards people.
As for wolves, they are growing in number in the lower 48, possibly beyond what the pressures of society and hunting will be able to tolerate. They have affected hunting! And they have been seen as much more curious with campers this past year. I think time will change the statistics on how many humans are hurt yearly by wolves (I think it will rise if hunting isn't allowed).
As for wolves, they are growing in number in the lower 48, possibly beyond what the pressures of society and hunting will be able to tolerate. They have affected hunting! And they have been seen as much more curious with campers this past year. I think time will change the statistics on how many humans are hurt yearly by wolves (I think it will rise if hunting isn't allowed).
Harve Curry
Member
What it comes down to is those who have original thoughts derived from personal study and observations, and those who's minds are made up and channeled by teachers/educators, watch television, read mainstream news.
I found a rule-book. It lays it out pretty simply who is in charge here. . its not the wolves ha ha.
Genesis 1:25-26 (New King James Version)
25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Main Entry: do·min·ion
Pronunciation: \də-ˈmi-nyən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: supreme authority : sovereignty
2: absolute ownership
Genesis 1:25-26 (New King James Version)
25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Main Entry: do·min·ion
Pronunciation: \də-ˈmi-nyən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: supreme authority : sovereignty
2: absolute ownership
caribou
Member
Oh ya, I agree on most points here, once we have removed Human Emotion from the equation.
We, "Man" do have dominion over the Animals, at the same time,and in the same breath, we are the Top of the Food Chain.
Wolves are a close compeditor on the Deer family resource, in that food chain.
Wolves and their predidations on Domestic stock is the only "real" problem I think. Seems Cougers and Bears do too, but not in packs.
I think a Rancher has an inherit right to defend his property, and should be able to kill any Animals that attacks his herds.
NorthAmerican Wolves just do not attack people without some extream circumstane; wounded, rabid, and attempted domestication by "Wolf lovers".Wild animals are a nervous lot when in human company, even after a couple generations.
Here , too, we have a huge population of wolves and our Caribou, Moose and Sheep populations are doing fine.,Back in 90/91 we had a warm spell inJanuary that had freezing rain cover the feed of the Sheep in 3 inches of ice. Most starved or were weakend enough not to have lambs or escape wolves. The strog survived, But the Wolves got fat.
Today, the Sheep are back and we can hunt them again.
For me, a long look has shown me that over time, Wolves keep the animal populations healthy.
Its the short term of 15 or so years that is hard to accept.
You know, its man that hunts and gets the "Best" as in "Ah got ah Goood Buck!" shooting the biggest and best of the gene pool dies, usually when its time to spred those genes.
Wolves get the end of the herd, as in the sick, weak, old and wounded. I have watched this many times, among the Caribou. If it cant keep up,or is somehow stupid, it gets eaten. Only the strong breed.
Imagine just how good it is during hunting season, with wounded and lost dead Deer are there for the eating? Comming across a few Dead Deer that have been finished off by Wolves might give the impression that they just kill for fun, but what if every thing you have in the kItchen and refrigerator was put on the table and left there till eaten?
Man is eliminating the bigest and the Best of the populations and removed the natural tool that keeps sickness and overpoulation from occuring.
When Caribou numbers boom,and they are eating up their food supply so do wolves, and for a short time, the Wolves really clean up. Then their populations too are downtrended,as their food supply has depleted and the result is self regulation , as they have fewer pups when times are lean, and the weak Wolves starve, become weak and are killed by the pack.
I think some ecosystem's are outta wack down there with having no Wolves for so long, in some places, the Biggest and Best being hunted for so long and the sick, weak and diseased are the ones breeding. This makes for an unhealthy Population.
Then you re-introduce wolves into this smagasbord of food, easy kills on fairly "uneducated" Deer not surviving their first encounter with a pack, and fences that dont let animals get away....Hmmmm.... guess whos comming to dinner, tail wagging.
Some place's are gonna need alot of culling to be healthy enough to boom in population again,but it would be strong when it did, geneticly.
I can easily understand how wolves would ruin hunting in many areas.
Remember the Arizona Kibab Deer in the 30's?
I love to kill Wolves.
And chop them up
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g71/edwardhailstone/goodoldones
0102.jpg
And wear them for warmth, fun and fashon....LOL!
We, "Man" do have dominion over the Animals, at the same time,and in the same breath, we are the Top of the Food Chain.
Wolves are a close compeditor on the Deer family resource, in that food chain.
Wolves and their predidations on Domestic stock is the only "real" problem I think. Seems Cougers and Bears do too, but not in packs.
I think a Rancher has an inherit right to defend his property, and should be able to kill any Animals that attacks his herds.
NorthAmerican Wolves just do not attack people without some extream circumstane; wounded, rabid, and attempted domestication by "Wolf lovers".Wild animals are a nervous lot when in human company, even after a couple generations.
Here , too, we have a huge population of wolves and our Caribou, Moose and Sheep populations are doing fine.,Back in 90/91 we had a warm spell inJanuary that had freezing rain cover the feed of the Sheep in 3 inches of ice. Most starved or were weakend enough not to have lambs or escape wolves. The strog survived, But the Wolves got fat.
Today, the Sheep are back and we can hunt them again.
For me, a long look has shown me that over time, Wolves keep the animal populations healthy.
Its the short term of 15 or so years that is hard to accept.
You know, its man that hunts and gets the "Best" as in "Ah got ah Goood Buck!" shooting the biggest and best of the gene pool dies, usually when its time to spred those genes.
Wolves get the end of the herd, as in the sick, weak, old and wounded. I have watched this many times, among the Caribou. If it cant keep up,or is somehow stupid, it gets eaten. Only the strong breed.
Imagine just how good it is during hunting season, with wounded and lost dead Deer are there for the eating? Comming across a few Dead Deer that have been finished off by Wolves might give the impression that they just kill for fun, but what if every thing you have in the kItchen and refrigerator was put on the table and left there till eaten?
Man is eliminating the bigest and the Best of the populations and removed the natural tool that keeps sickness and overpoulation from occuring.
When Caribou numbers boom,and they are eating up their food supply so do wolves, and for a short time, the Wolves really clean up. Then their populations too are downtrended,as their food supply has depleted and the result is self regulation , as they have fewer pups when times are lean, and the weak Wolves starve, become weak and are killed by the pack.
I think some ecosystem's are outta wack down there with having no Wolves for so long, in some places, the Biggest and Best being hunted for so long and the sick, weak and diseased are the ones breeding. This makes for an unhealthy Population.
Then you re-introduce wolves into this smagasbord of food, easy kills on fairly "uneducated" Deer not surviving their first encounter with a pack, and fences that dont let animals get away....Hmmmm.... guess whos comming to dinner, tail wagging.
Some place's are gonna need alot of culling to be healthy enough to boom in population again,but it would be strong when it did, geneticly.
I can easily understand how wolves would ruin hunting in many areas.
Remember the Arizona Kibab Deer in the 30's?
I love to kill Wolves.
And chop them up
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g71/edwardhailstone/goodoldones
0102.jpg
And wear them for warmth, fun and fashon....LOL!
leathermanwave
Member
Amen to that. rookie
Wolves always eat what they kill, never leave garbage, and practice fair chase...sounds better then most humans.
Seriously though where I live (AZ), there are wolf packs, but I don't see what makes a wolf different from any other critter that lives here, cougar, bear, jaguar, or even deer, except that people fear them more. They should be legal game, when they have a stable population or start taking to large a toll on the population of other animals.
I have never worried about being attack by any animals when in the wilderness, I am more likely to get a disease or struck by lightning. they don;t even pose a threat to farm animals around here, since our wolves only live in the most rugged mountains, no where near any ranches.
Seriously though where I live (AZ), there are wolf packs, but I don't see what makes a wolf different from any other critter that lives here, cougar, bear, jaguar, or even deer, except that people fear them more. They should be legal game, when they have a stable population or start taking to large a toll on the population of other animals.
I have never worried about being attack by any animals when in the wilderness, I am more likely to get a disease or struck by lightning. they don;t even pose a threat to farm animals around here, since our wolves only live in the most rugged mountains, no where near any ranches.
interlock
Member
prey numbers control predator numbers. not the other way round
Prey numbers control preditor numbers. You're correct, and that is exactly why the gun control advocates are the ones that promoted wolf reintroduction in ther lower 48--no prey (that's called deer, elk, etc) equals no hunting, thus no reason for people to have guns. OUTLAW THEM!
Those that support the wolf reintroduction have no clue as to what is really happening (in the lower 48--Caribou, in AK it is a TOTALLY different situation, and you speak no foul language--for AK).
Anyone with a tad of knowledge of what these wolves are doing in the lower 48 doesn't follow the 3 S's, sound as they are, --they just shoot and walk the other way. Works for me!
Those that support the wolf reintroduction have no clue as to what is really happening (in the lower 48--Caribou, in AK it is a TOTALLY different situation, and you speak no foul language--for AK).
Anyone with a tad of knowledge of what these wolves are doing in the lower 48 doesn't follow the 3 S's, sound as they are, --they just shoot and walk the other way. Works for me!
Harve Curry
Member
brandonc QUOTE:
"Wolves always eat what they kill, never leave garbage, and practice fair chase...sounds better then most humans. "
Tell that to the single Mom rancher 10 miles north of me that lost 8 mother cows to a pair of wolves that only ate the milk udders and went on to the next cow. The calves were never seen again. Wolves like any dog or cat like to play with their food and have favorite parts to eat.
"Wolves always eat what they kill, never leave garbage, and practice fair chase...sounds better then most humans. "
Tell that to the single Mom rancher 10 miles north of me that lost 8 mother cows to a pair of wolves that only ate the milk udders and went on to the next cow. The calves were never seen again. Wolves like any dog or cat like to play with their food and have favorite parts to eat.
caribou
Member
Totally spot on.
But look at the whole picture;
How much Beef can two Wolves eat?
Take away that meal, and their gonna kill another one untill they are killed....its eat or die for them, and with a "Replacement Cow" needed for the next meal now that the rancher removed the first course I'm fairly certain.
It would be best to leave the carcass to the Wolves and set traps there.
Eating the udders sound right, as its a "Fatty" place on a cow, the first thing any wild animal will eat. Tounge too. Quick, fat and easy to get without a mouthfull of hair. They do the same to Caribou. Difference is theres no one interfering with the meal in the wild ....(usually...LOL!)and the animals have the opportunity to return and eat.
Uninterupted, they would have had a chance to eat the whole cow, before killing another, as its easier to keep eating than to kill again....Thats not the Wolves fault, so its on to the next meal.
If the calfs dissapeared , then the Wolves dragged them off where they could finnish the meal.
How damn stupid are Cows? Stupid but valuable.
I eat Beef because I hate Cows.
It takes at least 4 wolves, taking turns molesting a Moose over two or three days, so that it doesnt get enough sleep and is exhausted enough for the pack to take on.
I hope the rancher shot the Wolves , because there would be no stopping a pair like that from the easy "welfare" meal a bovine seems to make...LOL!!!
Im sure that Wolves, like all predators , "Plays" with its food, they often show personality.....Geee Whizzzzzzzzz, I have even played with my food, before killing it......LOL!
But look at the whole picture;
How much Beef can two Wolves eat?
Take away that meal, and their gonna kill another one untill they are killed....its eat or die for them, and with a "Replacement Cow" needed for the next meal now that the rancher removed the first course I'm fairly certain.
It would be best to leave the carcass to the Wolves and set traps there.
Eating the udders sound right, as its a "Fatty" place on a cow, the first thing any wild animal will eat. Tounge too. Quick, fat and easy to get without a mouthfull of hair. They do the same to Caribou. Difference is theres no one interfering with the meal in the wild ....(usually...LOL!)and the animals have the opportunity to return and eat.
Uninterupted, they would have had a chance to eat the whole cow, before killing another, as its easier to keep eating than to kill again....Thats not the Wolves fault, so its on to the next meal.
If the calfs dissapeared , then the Wolves dragged them off where they could finnish the meal.
How damn stupid are Cows? Stupid but valuable.
I eat Beef because I hate Cows.
It takes at least 4 wolves, taking turns molesting a Moose over two or three days, so that it doesnt get enough sleep and is exhausted enough for the pack to take on.
I hope the rancher shot the Wolves , because there would be no stopping a pair like that from the easy "welfare" meal a bovine seems to make...LOL!!!
Im sure that Wolves, like all predators , "Plays" with its food, they often show personality.....Geee Whizzzzzzzzz, I have even played with my food, before killing it......LOL!
Fair chase?
Is it ethical, or legal, for a group of 10 human hunters with 2-way radios to form a circle, trap an animal, close in on it, rip its guts out with knives, and start eating it while it's still alive?
Nothing against wolves, really. Evolution made them as they are. But to think of predators in terms of "fair chase," one way or another, is what we as kids used to call "retarded."
Is it ethical, or legal, for a group of 10 human hunters with 2-way radios to form a circle, trap an animal, close in on it, rip its guts out with knives, and start eating it while it's still alive?
Nothing against wolves, really. Evolution made them as they are. But to think of predators in terms of "fair chase," one way or another, is what we as kids used to call "retarded."
Harve Curry
Member
Sorry Caribu but your assumptions are wrong. The carcasses were left there waiting for USFW to come investigate. Wolf depradations have been happening long enough around here now that the kills are treated like a crime scene. It takes 3 confirmed Incidents to condem a wolf for removal or shoot them. A confimed incident may contain 1 or a dozen cattle horses or sheep or whatever......... so 3 dead animals does not make 3 incidents. It has to be 3 different places and dates, number of domestic animals killed doesn't enter into it. Photographs, measurements are taken of bite size, tracks and spore, by government investigators. They decide if it was wolf kill or not.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
I'm all for reintroducing wolves and thus restoring our full indigenous species spectrum to the North American eco-system, PROVIDED THAT there are reasonable laws allowing culling by humans; i.e. (1) that a rancher or other person can shoot them without being charged with anything, if they are attacking livestock or people, (2) that each state's wildlife department has the right to regulate their numbers as they see fit, by establishing hunting criterion: season dates, numbers killed, etc.
The problem is NOT the re-introduction; it's the re-introduction *combined with* these intrusive unreasonable rules which come with harsh criminal and civil penalties if you shoot one. I think that if you shoot one and claim self-defense, the burden of proof should be on the gov't to prove you wrong, not upon you to prove it WAS self-defense (or defense of your livestock). If we have reasonable RULES about culling, then they'd learn much more quickly and more surely to avoid humans and human activity (including harassing livestock).
See, that's what's wrong with this picture, not the re-introduction or allowance of continued survival itself. Again, the burden for shooting is much too high. It should be one incident as reported by the shooter of an *attempt* to kill or injure livestock or humans, with the gov't bearing the burden of proving your allegation of defense wrong.
The problem is NOT the re-introduction; it's the re-introduction *combined with* these intrusive unreasonable rules which come with harsh criminal and civil penalties if you shoot one. I think that if you shoot one and claim self-defense, the burden of proof should be on the gov't to prove you wrong, not upon you to prove it WAS self-defense (or defense of your livestock). If we have reasonable RULES about culling, then they'd learn much more quickly and more surely to avoid humans and human activity (including harassing livestock).
See, that's what's wrong with this picture, not the re-introduction or allowance of continued survival itself. Again, the burden for shooting is much too high. It should be one incident as reported by the shooter of an *attempt* to kill or injure livestock or humans, with the gov't bearing the burden of proving your allegation of defense wrong.
They made two errors in the wolf re-introduction: The wolf specie and the location. They should have introduced European wolves, because they are much more prone to enjoy human meat, and the introduction should have been in Central Park (NYC) where there are plenty of vermin to eat!
caribou
Member
LOL!!
I just have to laugh with this thread.
Id love to hunt Central Park, but Downtown Washington DC is where the TRULY DANGEROUS WOLVES ARE.
Cut a swath through them, and we might get somewhere with this problem.
I just have to laugh with this thread.
Id love to hunt Central Park, but Downtown Washington DC is where the TRULY DANGEROUS WOLVES ARE.
Cut a swath through them, and we might get somewhere with this problem.
Last edited:
- Status
