Wolves?

[oneounceload]

Personally, the ranching operations I have seen on BLM land border on criminal - just another tax-payer funded welfare program for the rancher. Same holds true for the mining companies.

Predation issues on private land is one thing; ranchers in NV abuse more BLM land than they personally own, thus helping to keep wild animal populations down from the overgrazing and stream damage

 

[Magoo]

I should have kept my mouth shut. This topic has little to do with THR and my opinions certainly will only lead to this thread being closed. I do hate that, as I like to read as much discussion from "real" people as I can. I know though that the more input from "my side" this thread recieves, the faster it will get closed. I'm out of this one. I'll leave the rest of you to manage our environment better than Mother Nature herself has been able to.

 

[ZeroJunk]

Magoo, I respect your opinion and you are entitled to it just as much as anybody else. But, you have to admit that the small pox blanket deal is a strawman.

 

[shaggy430]

Magoo, how are the wolves in SC?

 

[Davek1977]

Magoo, how are the wolves in SC?

Good question! While everyone is free to comment of course, I tend to take more from the opinions of people who have actually had to deal with the expanding wolf populations personally, rather than someone with a notion of how they thing things ought to be from afar. As a 3rd generation rancher, the idea of uncontrolled wolf populations don't sit the least bit well with me. I don't need to hear any nonsense about our destroying BLM lands, becasue my family has never used such leases. In fact, we aren't even in one of the states with a current wolf issue....but we border a couple. If wolves expand to the degree mountain lions have in the last ten years or so, we're sure to have a breeding population of our own shortly. I hope a plan of controlling them...if not eradicating them from areas never meant for reintroduction....is in place before then. The ranching industry is tough enough as it is usually, without throwing wolf depredation into the mix. this is no longer about mother nature managing populations......we can't expect the same ppopulation densities and what not as we had in 1800 with today's population . Mother nature isn't always the steward of the land as the idealistic seem to think. If so, we wouldn't have deer and elk populations that exceed the carrying capacity of the land. Today's animal populations cannot be left to mother nature alone, as unchecked poulations aren't good for anyone. There has already been far too much human interference to simply let mother nature do her thing. WE screwed up the predator/prey balance, and now its on US to maintain a working balance. Motrher nature isn't the be-all end all solution. To blieve that echoes the thoughts of those who believe wild bison populaitons need to be restored across the midwest, with little or no concern about the people and wildlife ALREADY using that land. We can't turn back time, no matter how some would like us to. Instead of dwelling on an idealistic "this is how things should be" we need to focus on the REALSTIC "this is how things ARE, and THIS is how we're going to manage them".

 

[Art Eatman]

The thread topic has to do with reintroduction of wolves, and primarily the reintroduction in the state of Washington.

Irrelevancies: Some ranchers' actions on some BLM land. Smallpox. Like or dislike for wilderness. And opinions which have no stated explanation for their existence.

Act like grownups and stick with the subject. Think twice, post once. All that good stuff you already know about how to behave in public.

 

[oneounceload]

OK, then I hope the reintroduction of the wolves EXCEEDS the expectations of those doing the reintroduction

Hope that is plain enough and doesn't upset the apple cart too much

(BTW, there is BLM land in WA)

 

[localgirl]

I live in North Idaho, where supposedly wolf populations are thriving. There is a lot of opposition to wolves here, and a lot of talk about wildlife predation and rancher issues, but in fact, our wildlife numbers, including elk, are at high levels--above Fish and Game projections and goals, and most of the sheep and pet killing is rumors spread by someone who told someone who told someone.

I hear it's different further south. I have yet to see or hear a wolf in the wild.

I'm against hunting them for two simple reasons: 1. I was taught that when you hunt, you eat what you kill. I don't see many folks eating wolf burgers. 2. Wolves have very complex social structures, quite human in fact, and form intense bonds with one another. It simply isn't like killing one deer in a herd, or even a lone, wandering moose.

Would I kill a wolf if it threatened my life, or even my dog's life? You bet.

But it seems that if reintroduction was misguided, managed hunts are even more misguided.

 

[spclpatrolgroup]

a pack of wolves need to kill about 1 deer per day to sustain themselves in teh winter. Last winter I found 10 relitivly fresh kills on our land, one of which has been a buck I have been chasing the last 3 years, but not all is lost, the wolves seem to have been moving underground around that area recently.

 

[HorseSoldier]

As far as ecosystem balance, a reduction in prey populations is good for the land itself, insofar as it allows regrowth of food plants to more healthy amounts. However, reducing the size of the game-animal herds does not help hunters at all--just the opposite. And it is reported by outdoorsmen that wolves have reduced the numbers of game animals in existing reintroduction areas.

I think it's a reasonable premise that's been borne out by science -- even up here in AK wolf reduction is advocated by professional guides, though I think too much of that is tied up with tourists wanting Disney-style hunting experiences where they're guaranteed to shoot one of whatever they want and can get tags for.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Yeah, and many of our forefathers supported throwing small pox at the native human popluations.

Actually, they never did that. It's an old myth that's been repeated so many times it's become "truth". The natives caught smallpox (and other European diseases) and died in great numbers because they didn't have the partial immunity that Europeans had developed over the centuries. Smallpox was endemic wherever Europeans traveled, but most Europeans lived through it, while most natives didn't. It was just that simple.

 

[Art Eatman]

localgirl, I think most of us who have no objection to killing wolves tie it to protection of livestock. Always remember that the property tax folks don't care if a rancher makes a profit; they want the tax money, regardless. And a dead 400-pound feeder calf is $546.90 (Bloomberg) lying on the ground.

One problem with unmanaged "wilderness" is that critters don't pay attention to property lines. It's all well and good to have bears, wolves and cougars in designated wilderness areas--or in national parks--but they don't necessarily stay there.

When they come outside their protected areas, IMO, they're just another predator. If my own livestock were endangered, I'd figure I was dealing with large, furry cockroaches insofar as the morality of the deal.

Who needs ranchers? Doesn't meat come cut and wrapped from the grocery?

 

[localgirl]

It's a tough call.

My grandfather was a cattle rancher in Montana for many years. I wish he were alive today so I could talk to him about this.

I have a great deal of respect for those who choose to farm and ranch, and I love me a good ribeye.

But I also know that we're the interlopers. The wolves were here before us and all that. Cattle are hard on the land. People take too much wilderness.

I don't know what the solution is. I think once wolves have become a viable threat, we're probably going to have to control them. I don't like it, but I fear that is the reality of the situation.

I would only hope that people try to keep rational. That they are certain it is wolves doing the predation and not coyotes, wild dogs, or cougars. And I would ask that control be done in as humane a way as possible.

In a week I will the opportunity to visit several wolves and interact with them. I can only imagine it will be an interesting experience. I'm not sure reintroduction was a good idea, but I'm sure that wolves are pretty amazing animals, and even if they have earned scorn, I think they still deserve respect.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Cattle on public lands are just a nuisance, so let the wolves have them all. Cattle on private land is a different matter, let landowners shoot wolves on sight.

 

[Art Eatman]

Kodiak Beer, from the standpoint of animal numbers, I'd bet there are more feral horses on BLM land in Nevada than there are cattle. In the Winnemucca/Black Rock Desert area, anyway. Same for the southern part of that state. My own experience is, approximately, one horse = three cows.

"But I also know that we're the interlopers."

localgirl, I really disagree, there. Homo sap has been here for over ten thousand years. That's a wee tad beyond tourism. When you have agricultural families in fourth and fifth generations on the land, working as only such folks do, I find it difficult to see them as interlopers. And please spare me the "noble red man" thing. "Apache" was the Navajo word for "enemy". The Comanches, even before Europeans arrived, were given to torture of captives, mutilation of foes and ownership of slaves--from their own oral history as well as direct observation during early contact.

And the only solution to increasing "interloping" would be either racial suicide or eugenic control of our numbers.

 

[jwalk]

This could give Washington some hope.

trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_b0e2445c-bdfe-11e0-9a22-001cc4c002e0.html

CHEYENNE -- After years of fighting, the state of Wyoming and the federal government have reached an agreement to remove the state's roughly 340 wolves from the endangered species list and put them under state control

Shoot on site in most of the state which it should be. We were able to do it for two weeks or so. Hope it doesn't take forever until we can do it again.

 

[Davek1977]

Its funny....as much as the mods have tried to steer away the comments regarding ranchers on BLM lands, certain people seem to keep coming back to the topic. The lands are for PUBLIC use....that means hunters, yes, but that also means ranchers as well, who pay for the privileges of land use most hunters get for free. Keep in mind that the income from these leases...meager as you may consider them....would be replaced by SOME charge. How would you like it if your public land now came with access fees no different than private land? I was content to let this go, but some people seem to consider ranchers and the cattle they raise a scourge that needs to be eliminated from public hands wholly. That WILL have unintended consequences for those suggesting such things. Maybe these "welfare hunters" who need public land just ought to buy their own? What, thats somehow "different" than what you are proposing? What about those that feel HUNTERS, not cattle are undesirable...does that mean we should deem such hunters as "feral" and "depopulate" public lands of them? Sure, I'm being facetious but seriously....public use means compromise, as not EVERYONE is going to agree on the "proper" use of the land. For some, its hunting...for others, its part of how they make a living. For all the talk of "welfare ranchers", I'd LOVE to see those making such comments put in the work a real ranch requires on a daily basis, 365/24/7. I have a feeling their "welfare" comments would go out the window in a hurry.

But it seems that if reintroduction was misguided, managed hunts are even more misguided.

As for the wolf issue...localgirl, managed hunts...as misguided as you may consider them....are a INEVITABLE result of wolf introduction. When you can breed wolves that respect park boundries and refuse to eat readily availble sheep and cattle, instead to kill hard to hunt deer and elk....then you can talk about eliminating such hunts. Until that point, every rancher should have the right to protect his or her property and source of income. We don't expect shop owners to stand idly by while people openly steal from them, so why should we expect ranchers just to absorb several thousands of dollars of loss in some cases from animals that were never supposed to migrate that far and have expanded WELL beyond the orignal goals of the reintroduction? Wolves may have been here first....don't recall anyone arguing that point... but the carrying capacity of the land, as well as how the land has been utilized, has certainly changed, and with that, the biological diversity has also adapted to the current conditions. Areas once suitable for wolves aren't necessarily suitable today. The argument of "they were here first" doesn't hold much water. Its true yes, but no one is advocating we regress to 1800, or 1900, when wolves populations were higher. The fact is, the human race, for better or worse, is going to be around for awhile most likely, and managing wildlife as if we didn't exist ourselves is just silly. While I feel there is certainly a place for wolves in our world, expecting wholesale introduction without the essential management that inevitably would come with, is in a word, asinine. Wolves are not some majestic species worthy of more respect than all others....they are animals whose populations need to be controlled. Personal opinions don't change basic facts....overpopulation of ANY species is going to be a problem, and that may very well mean a numnber of animals being killed to keep things in check

As for your grandfather...being a 3rd generation rancher.....well, I have a strong feeling as to how he would feel about wolves....especially after finding his prized yearling steer butchered by a wolf.....and I don't think it would be "Aw shucks, he was just hungry...wish we had more of them furry lil guys around!"

 

[shiftyer1]

I think everything has it's place.....although if i had wolf problems it's place would be underground. I think it's wrong to eradicate them but I don't know how to find the harmony.

 

[lizziedog1]

There are rumors that some wolves have been spotted in far Northern Nevada near the Idaho border. I live some distance from there, so if they ever make down here it will take awhile.

So, can anyone confirm if they are indeed making it into Nevada?

 

[wankerjake]

Cattle on public lands are just a nuisance, so let the wolves have them all

I bet you don't think beef on public land is a nuisance when it's sandwiched between two buns

I think most folks don't realize that humans are part of nature, and we're competing with the wolves. We're smarter so we win. That's how nature works. We killed a bunch of them off for a reason; they interfere with what we do. Why do we want them back??? There's plenty of wolves up in Alaska where there's enough game that humans and wolves can effectively compete. Down here wolves were out-competed. Re-introduction encroaches on humans, there's not enough room for both of us. You take the national parks, where human predation is prohibited and you can have all the wolves you want. Wolves are part of a healthy ecosystem... until you introduce another large-scale predator. Therein lies the competition. Humans are that predator. Why are people ashamed of this?

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

The wolf reintroduction in Idaho has gone so well that they are now issuing wolf tags during hunting season. It's not surprising that people think it's a good thing to reintroduce wolves but later find out that they are out of control and need to be "managed." I guess the good old days of reding up on a topic before making a decision are gone. :banghead:

 

[Geckgo]

Wolf reintroduction is fine if you allow people to kill them too. Manage the wildlife numbers, give people the opportunity to take them, whether by tag or other normal game methods, and we can all win.

 

[jleyring]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/wolf-wars/wolf-interactive

cool map that allows you to see how much they have grown in the past few years.

 

[westy39]

The subject of wolf reintroduction is at the very least difficult. I live in Montana, have worked cows for a number of years. When this wolf introduction was first started we were told that the wolves were needed in Yellowstone park to provide a balance to the animal population. I am of the opinion that Yellowstone park is a great place for the wolf. Outside the park well not so much, I have seen the wolves expand their range to include more and more areas outside the park. There are groups, who of course, don't raise any livestock be it cattle, sheep, or chickens that believe wolf introduction is an excellent project. I have serious doubts that any of these fine and noble people are actual residents of Montana or stockgrowers in Montana. There is a so called process in which the stockgrower is paid for his livestock loss due to wolf attacks, but the process is less than perfect. I say in Yellowstone park let the wolves do what they do and in Montana the Montana FWP should manage the wolf population by selling wolf tags as they did a couple of years ago. I still have my wolf tag as I failed to shoot one before the harvest limit was reached. This is an issue that the courts will try over and over again without the benefit of common sense in my not so humble opinion. Just my 2 cents worth from the Big Sky country,Montana......Be safe all and keep your powder dry... Westy39

 

[mjsja]

Wolves and elk are already in harmony

THE BIG BAD WOLF DEBATE
I have do some much research on this issue of wolves and their prey.Wolves do not need to be manage by man. That was the whole problem in the first place and it did not work out so well for the wolf.Thee population of wolves will rise and fall with the amount of prey.The facts are the elk herds are smaller but they are much healthier.I think that hunters would like this fact but it seems some are determined that the wilderness should be made only of elk,bison, moose and deer.The only predator should be man.Mother nature does a far better job of managing the people ever did.Since the wolves have been in Yellowstone beaver are on the come back because the wolves for the elk and bison herds to move instead of staying in one spot to eat all the vegetation that other animals consume.The diseases in the elk and bison are down.Not to mention large numbers of animal are not starving to death.