cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
for what its worth i think a rancher/farmer catches wolves killing his stock should be able to shoot it right there. its the "kill em all folks that need to chill
Cry wolf!
- Thread starter cliffy
- Start date
- Status
Sagetown
Member
I can remember back when I was young, how the coyotes in our area would raid Dad's cattle herd every winter. Sometime in the early 60's the raids began tapering off. Fish and Game paid out bounties and performed other types of predator control.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
interesting you mention yotes
http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/coyote/p7.htm
long piece but heres the meat
Conclusion
Although the results of these studies appear ambiguous at first glance, differences in methodologies among studies can explain the various outcomes. The Texas studies which involved short-term (< 6 months) coyote removal programs did not note differences in rodent and lagomorph populations. However, those studies which consistently removed coyotes throughout the year began to realize population-level changes after a minimum of 9 months of coyote removal.
Although white-tailed deer and bobwhite quail reproductive success increased with coyote removal, overall population densities for both species remained unchanged. This implies that a compensatory mortality mechanism is involved with these populations and that potential population increases of certain game species due to coyote removal are short-lived. All studies indicated that coyote control caused an immigration of coyotes into the removal areas. Coyote population densities returned to pre-removal levels typically within 3 months after removal efforts ceased.
Therefore, short-term coyote removal programs typically are not sufficient in reducing coyote density and, therefore do not alter ecosystem composition. However, intensive, long-term coyote removal has been successful in reducing coyote populations by over 40%, which has resulted in prey-base increases.
The intended goals of coyote control need to be determined prior to the onset of removal efforts. If the management objective is to reduce livestock losses caused by coyotes, then an intensive, short-term removal program may provide immediate relief of depredation just before and after parturition. However, if the coyote removal is practiced year-round, microherbivore populations may potentially increase; increased competition for forage with livestock may result. Consequently, a reduced stocking rate then may be required to offset competition, which may negate the number of livestock saved from predation.
If the goal is to increase the harvestable surplus of a game species, then it must first be determined that coyote control will increase the numbers of the target species. Next, can the additional animals be supported by the habitat? Finally, will predation as a mortality source be replaced with other mortality factors acting in a compensatory manner? Until these questions can be answered, then coyote removal would not be warranted.
Literature Cited
http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/coyote/p7.htm
long piece but heres the meat
Conclusion
Although the results of these studies appear ambiguous at first glance, differences in methodologies among studies can explain the various outcomes. The Texas studies which involved short-term (< 6 months) coyote removal programs did not note differences in rodent and lagomorph populations. However, those studies which consistently removed coyotes throughout the year began to realize population-level changes after a minimum of 9 months of coyote removal.
Although white-tailed deer and bobwhite quail reproductive success increased with coyote removal, overall population densities for both species remained unchanged. This implies that a compensatory mortality mechanism is involved with these populations and that potential population increases of certain game species due to coyote removal are short-lived. All studies indicated that coyote control caused an immigration of coyotes into the removal areas. Coyote population densities returned to pre-removal levels typically within 3 months after removal efforts ceased.
Therefore, short-term coyote removal programs typically are not sufficient in reducing coyote density and, therefore do not alter ecosystem composition. However, intensive, long-term coyote removal has been successful in reducing coyote populations by over 40%, which has resulted in prey-base increases.
The intended goals of coyote control need to be determined prior to the onset of removal efforts. If the management objective is to reduce livestock losses caused by coyotes, then an intensive, short-term removal program may provide immediate relief of depredation just before and after parturition. However, if the coyote removal is practiced year-round, microherbivore populations may potentially increase; increased competition for forage with livestock may result. Consequently, a reduced stocking rate then may be required to offset competition, which may negate the number of livestock saved from predation.
If the goal is to increase the harvestable surplus of a game species, then it must first be determined that coyote control will increase the numbers of the target species. Next, can the additional animals be supported by the habitat? Finally, will predation as a mortality source be replaced with other mortality factors acting in a compensatory manner? Until these questions can be answered, then coyote removal would not be warranted.
Literature Cited
Sagetown
Member
quote by cassandrasdaddy:Next, can the additional animals be supported by the habitat?
That's the problem. What with farmers and ranchers using larger and more Sophisticated implements and tractors, that can cover many, many acres per day, keeping the land clean, or planted in thick fescue, the quail habitat in many areas have all but vanished.
Deer on the otherhand can cope with land improvement as long as they have some cover.
That's the problem. What with farmers and ranchers using larger and more Sophisticated implements and tractors, that can cover many, many acres per day, keeping the land clean, or planted in thick fescue, the quail habitat in many areas have all but vanished.
Deer on the otherhand can cope with land improvement as long as they have some cover.
The student was working at a mine in Canada, the student was videotaped by his friend the day before harassing, swinging a stick at habituated wolves, and laughing at them. They were habituated by improper trash disposal methods and irresponsible miners and students feeding them.
By the way, the reintroduced population of wolves in the northern rockies is the only pure population of wolves in the lower 48 left. Its a proven fact from genetic testing done on those reintroduced, and on those that have been born from those original wolves.
The Great lakes population is polluted by dog genetics, around 40% or more, why, simple, from hunting the experienced alpha males and females this leaves weaker less experienced, less knowledgeable wolves trying to learn on their own to survive, these animals are the wolves that mix with dogs on rare occasion, and hunt livestock instead of their intended wild prey.
Irresponsible livestock husbandry causes a few livestock kills every year with wolves. By researching this subject wolves kill very few livestock animals a year, the majority are from disease, accidents, predation from coyotes not kept in check by wolves, and from mans best friend, the dog running lose, or from coydogs and feral dogs which are decended from herding dogs and farm/ranch dogs.
The subject of wolves and Europe, during the middle ages when reports of wolf attacks in Europe reached its highest point, this time period followed the fall of the Roman empire. During the Roman empire everyone had dogs, livestock protection, herding, guard dogs, pets, working dogs of many breeds. At the fall of Rome these dogs were abandoned to nature all over Europe. These dogs lived wild and took advantage of what they knew were reliable food suppliers, humans and their livestock (dogs approach closer and are 1000 times more confident around humans than any wolf will ever be). Its now a proven fact that what was considered wolves at the time were wolfish dogs running wild around human settlements they probably once lived in.
No wolves are not totally harmless, yes they can be ferocious predators, this is what they have done for over 100,000 years before us.
In the US there has never been one verifiable case of a wolf attacking or killing a human, with the exception of a few rare cases of rabid wolves. In fact biologists capture wolves in leghold traps to collar them, they dont even have to use any sedatives to handle them, because they naturally will submit and lie still when handled properly. But they are wild animals and can kill a human (the weaker animal) with no problem.
Dont listen to rumors, or lies spread to rally support for the cause of killing off a long needed integral part of our countries ecosystem. Like any wild animal, they can be properly managed if done responsibly, so far no responsible plan has been cooked up to manage them properly among the states where they were reintroduced. Alaska does have alot of wolf hunting, but keep in mind that they also have 50-100 times as many wolves as the entire lower 48 states combined. They also have traditional wolf hunting practices that were set down by Inuit elders who have lived alongside wolves peacefully for thousands of years. Maybe we should learn from those who have lived with them the longest.
I support hunting as long as it is done legally, and within a well researched and sound plan that benefits our wildlife, not the beef industry or Butch otter.
By the way, the reintroduced population of wolves in the northern rockies is the only pure population of wolves in the lower 48 left. Its a proven fact from genetic testing done on those reintroduced, and on those that have been born from those original wolves.
The Great lakes population is polluted by dog genetics, around 40% or more, why, simple, from hunting the experienced alpha males and females this leaves weaker less experienced, less knowledgeable wolves trying to learn on their own to survive, these animals are the wolves that mix with dogs on rare occasion, and hunt livestock instead of their intended wild prey.
Irresponsible livestock husbandry causes a few livestock kills every year with wolves. By researching this subject wolves kill very few livestock animals a year, the majority are from disease, accidents, predation from coyotes not kept in check by wolves, and from mans best friend, the dog running lose, or from coydogs and feral dogs which are decended from herding dogs and farm/ranch dogs.
The subject of wolves and Europe, during the middle ages when reports of wolf attacks in Europe reached its highest point, this time period followed the fall of the Roman empire. During the Roman empire everyone had dogs, livestock protection, herding, guard dogs, pets, working dogs of many breeds. At the fall of Rome these dogs were abandoned to nature all over Europe. These dogs lived wild and took advantage of what they knew were reliable food suppliers, humans and their livestock (dogs approach closer and are 1000 times more confident around humans than any wolf will ever be). Its now a proven fact that what was considered wolves at the time were wolfish dogs running wild around human settlements they probably once lived in.
No wolves are not totally harmless, yes they can be ferocious predators, this is what they have done for over 100,000 years before us.
In the US there has never been one verifiable case of a wolf attacking or killing a human, with the exception of a few rare cases of rabid wolves. In fact biologists capture wolves in leghold traps to collar them, they dont even have to use any sedatives to handle them, because they naturally will submit and lie still when handled properly. But they are wild animals and can kill a human (the weaker animal) with no problem.
Dont listen to rumors, or lies spread to rally support for the cause of killing off a long needed integral part of our countries ecosystem. Like any wild animal, they can be properly managed if done responsibly, so far no responsible plan has been cooked up to manage them properly among the states where they were reintroduced. Alaska does have alot of wolf hunting, but keep in mind that they also have 50-100 times as many wolves as the entire lower 48 states combined. They also have traditional wolf hunting practices that were set down by Inuit elders who have lived alongside wolves peacefully for thousands of years. Maybe we should learn from those who have lived with them the longest.
I support hunting as long as it is done legally, and within a well researched and sound plan that benefits our wildlife, not the beef industry or Butch otter.
Cassandrasdaddy, I agree.
I know all about the extreme high prey drives of primative dog breeds such as huskies. I have a pair of furballs that work as a team.
My pure Siberian husky is the older experienced dominant dog, he is smaller, but stronger, faster, and is all business when it comes to wild animals. Luckily I keep him on a leash or on a heavy cable at all times.
My husky/lab/shepard mix was raised by my husky and us, he is 6 inches taller, heavier by around 10 lbs or so, younger, and he is the pack member that chases and keeps the animal busy while the husky slides in unnoticed for the kill.
By the way, I read an article about what was blamed as a wolf attack on a pet in Illinois, the assumption was made because the footprint was 4.5x3.5 inches. Heres a few reference photos of the size of my husky and his enormous snowshoe footprints (4.25x3.5 inches), yet he is almost half the size and weight of an average male gray wolf.
But they are not quite the savages they may seem sometimes, not with family.
I know all about the extreme high prey drives of primative dog breeds such as huskies. I have a pair of furballs that work as a team.
My pure Siberian husky is the older experienced dominant dog, he is smaller, but stronger, faster, and is all business when it comes to wild animals. Luckily I keep him on a leash or on a heavy cable at all times.
My husky/lab/shepard mix was raised by my husky and us, he is 6 inches taller, heavier by around 10 lbs or so, younger, and he is the pack member that chases and keeps the animal busy while the husky slides in unnoticed for the kill.
By the way, I read an article about what was blamed as a wolf attack on a pet in Illinois, the assumption was made because the footprint was 4.5x3.5 inches. Heres a few reference photos of the size of my husky and his enormous snowshoe footprints (4.25x3.5 inches), yet he is almost half the size and weight of an average male gray wolf.
But they are not quite the savages they may seem sometimes, not with family.
IdahoLT1
Member
The student had nothing to due with the previous incident. It was his two friends/co workers. They reported the wolf was agressive and they were trying to fend it off.SHvar said:
Authorities did confirm he was killed by wolves. Witnesses obviously heard wolves when the found the body and there were tracks of 5-6 different wolves. He was missing for 4-5 hours before his friends found his body. A bear consumes 15% of its bodyweight in 24hrs or ~7% in 4-5 hours. So in that time, roughly 21lbs would have been consumed, if a bear had killed him. He was missing an estimated 70-80lbs of his body weight(145lb guy), pointing to a pack of wolves. The scene of the incident also showed a struggle. He had been knocked down and gotten up a few times before succoumbing to his death. Had it been a bear, he would never have been able to get up and he would have had broken bones(none reported in the autopsy).
SHvar said:
Few? Even pro-wolf sites reported that 237 sheep were killed by wolves last year in Idaho, 240 in '05 and 183 in in '04. Yes most are from disease, more are killed by bears, coyotes and cougars than wolves. But, coyotes are considered non-game species in Idaho, cougars and bear have hunting seasons and all 3 far out number wolves. In these tough economic times, why cause more hardship for rancher, livestock owners and pet owners? Less cattel, sheep, pigs and other livestock harvested also means shoppers pay higher prices for their meat. Heres a quote from a newspaper on livestock losses by wolves:
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005122274Idaho Mountain Express said:
There have been attacks on humans inside US territory. I will say that the wolves obviously cant distinguish US territory from Canadian territory, so its easy for you to argue about the attacks on US soil(numerous attacks in Canadian territory, even recently, including the 2 incidents before carnegie was killed). The last attack on US soil was in Iowa in 1910(5 dead wolves found at his campsite with an ampty repeating rifle in the middle next to human remain). remember though that the timberwolf was damn near exterminated in the 40's, so you can say "that was almost 100 years ago". There are numerous documented attacks on humans in the 1800's into the 1900's.SHvar said:
Wolf biologist Mark McNay on January 18, 2007, who at the time, worked for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game reported three years prior, he studied 80 events in Alaska and Canada where wolves closely approached or attacked people, finding 39 cases of aggression by apparently healthy wolves, and 29 cases of fearless behavior by non-aggressive wolves. http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/pubs/techpubs/research_pdfs/techb13p1.pdf
Wrong. Like I said in another thread, Montana and Idaho had great management plans. Idaho wanted to keep atleast 520 wolves which was 5 times the amount the US fish and wildlife originally wanted in Idaho and far more than most hunters/sportman/rancher/livestock owners wanted. http://www.idahostatesman.com/1300/story/586396.htmlSHvar said:
SHvar said:
So Alaska has between 300,000 and 600,000 wolves? Because there are around 4,000 wolves in the midwest and ~2,000 in the rockies. Thats a crap load of wolves. They might have 3-4 times as many, at most 10x.
the problem with the wolf reintroduction was that they reintroduced the wrong wolf. Some people will say the native timberwolf is the same as the gray wolf, but there is a rule called Bergmans Rule which basically states that animals in the same species will get larger as the latitude of degrees goes up. Meaning local timberwolves(sub species of the gray wolf) are smaller than the gray wolves in Alaska. Look at all the White tail, Mule deer and Elk size records and they are from northern countries/terriories.
This Canadian gray wolf species is also use to hunting Carribou, which are faster and have larger herd numbers than Elk. So they re introduce a larger, non native wolf species thats been used to hunting faster, greater protected by numbers and greater populated animals for thousands of years. Elk populations have decreased by 50% in Yellowstone since the mid 90's. Read this report for some interesting facts http://www.yellowstonepark.com/MoreToKnow/ShowNewsDetails.aspx?newsid=10
SHvar said:
hmm...FAQ from http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/faqs/faq.asp#12
The 10th ammendment allows each State to run its own wildlife programs, as long as it doesnt conflict with Federal laws(i.e. hunting of endangered/protected animals). What interest do people living in Alaska, California, Florida or New York have with what Wyoming, Montana or Idaho do? They should have no say in it. It ticks me off when non residents think its best if we have certain wildlife in our land. Its my tax dollars that pays to manage those wolves. Not the people in California who cried for re-intorduction. I think we should re-introduce Grizzly bears into the bay area of California. Apparently they have a say in what wildlife we should have.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,097
really?
I have owned Drahthaars most of my adult life, my oldest son has one himself. They do love to hunt and if encouraged will kill cats, but many of mine have lived beside house/barn cats their whole lives and just ignored them. Around here a cat(any cat) roaming at large is considered feral............and legal game.
Not saying they aren't good dogs. And a dog is not a breed is not a dog.
Pardon my wording if it sounded like I was talking about all dogs of a breed, or even all dogs within a narrow category.
The fact is, the Germans have bred, and still breed for some traits that we don't necessarily want.
http://www.gundogmag.com/gundog_breeds/deutsch_1031/
That doesn't mean your dogs have that trait, or have an undesirable form of it, either.
However, just to show I wasn't writing out of my ass and insulting your dogs...
From a breeder's site http://www.drahthaars.net :
Pardon my wording if it sounded like I was talking about all dogs of a breed, or even all dogs within a narrow category.
The fact is, the Germans have bred, and still breed for some traits that we don't necessarily want.
http://www.gundogmag.com/gundog_breeds/deutsch_1031/
That doesn't mean your dogs have that trait, or have an undesirable form of it, either.
However, just to show I wasn't writing out of my ass and insulting your dogs...
From a breeder's site http://www.drahthaars.net :
dogrunner
Member
Idaho LT1.\\
Had that incident occured here in Florida that person would've been charged with felony armed trespass for coming on the property gun in hand. Further, his PROPER action would've been to sue the offender, not kill his dog.
Had the same incident occured hereabouts when a local rancher decided to kill some deer dogs that were running on his land......he did, and the response was that four plus of his Arabians wound up with a .22 magnum in their gut.
What's good for one is good for another!
Had that incident occured here in Florida that person would've been charged with felony armed trespass for coming on the property gun in hand. Further, his PROPER action would've been to sue the offender, not kill his dog.
Had the same incident occured hereabouts when a local rancher decided to kill some deer dogs that were running on his land......he did, and the response was that four plus of his Arabians wound up with a .22 magnum in their gut.
What's good for one is good for another!
Harve Curry
Member
It is a differnt culture and terrain in the west and southwest. We cannot run dogs on deer, only bear and cougar. If a dog is chasing horses or cattle he's probably going to get shot, once they start it's almost immpossible to stop them. Ranchers, hired help, and deputy sheriffs shoot dogs. It's more the people that own them and know better but don't care, that let there dogs run unattended.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
took me a while to adjust to running deer with dogs when i tell my relatives they react the same way i did when they drove out on the ice with me in the car to go fishing
- Status
