PDA

View Full Version : Wolves



dropkick
2007-06-16, 23:56
Well we have wolves in my favorite day hike/dog walking area.
They've been killing calves and got a couple of dogs.
They've also been spotted up by my land (I have 40 acres up in the Bitterroot Mountain Range).

Damn those wolf loving so called ecologists all to hell.
We didn't need to import wolves back into our eco system, it was operating fine without them.

Now I'm going to need to pack a pistol when walking my dog.

You might disagree with me and think the wolves are a good thing. I support your right to any moronic, brain-dead opinions you might wish to have and I would like to recommend to you a hiking short alteration that I found online.
I think all idiotic knowledge retarded wolf supporters should wear these hiking shorts.
link for wolf supporters (www.instructables.com/id/EAM8HHGF2NOBP8U/)

Kea
2007-06-17, 01:30
:shrugs: I'm for the reintroduction of wolves AND the right of people to protect their lives and property from wolves who are actually behaving badly. Same with bears and other carnivores prone to eating people and their dogs, and kids.

I'm not so wound up about the loss of livestock, UNLESS it's wolves who are behaving badly, and not just wolves being...well...wolves. I have a wolf pelt hanging on my wall that came from Canada, and it was from an animal culled because it presented a genuine threat to human beings, so it's not the least bit like I'm an emotional tree hugger who can't see the need. What I don't see the need for is tragger happy ranchers shooting wolves, keas, or whatever, because they just happen to be there. A dog I knew was shot for running someone's cattle on a local farm, and the law gave the farmer the right to pull thr trigger, and it is very sad the dog was left out where she could do that, but she was being...a dog and she was doing wrong.

I gotta admit that I am happy to live where the coyotes aren't, in these parts. They are presenting a big problem for all those suburbanites who bit off more than they could chew by buying huge houses in the 'country'. Of course, it isn't the coyote's fault, either. :/

Bear
2007-06-17, 02:49
Sounds like it is time to open a season on wolves, not only from what you said but from other things I have read about the wolf population in your area.

It reminds me of the alligator problem in Florida. Now that people are disappearing (inside the gator) some of the media are asking what is being done about the gator problem. Not too long ago the Louisiana alligator was protected due to small populations. They have come back with a vengeance. There is a controlled season on them but in subdivisions close to water or with small ponds, alligators seem to materialize. I work with several individuals that live in one such neighborhood and they have had to remove several gators that they felt were a threat to their dogs and children. What do they do with them?...gator is good eating. Maybe we just need to send some Cajuns to Florida and the headlines will read, MAN ATTACKS GATOR or GATOR FOUND DEAD WITH NO TAIL.

deadeye
2007-06-17, 07:34
I'm not a big fan of (fill in the blank with the who-knows-what-the-consequences-will-be animal of your choice) reintroduction either, but geez Dropkick, I'm sure glad you're open to dissenting opinions.

CoyoteWhips
2007-06-18, 00:58
In my moronic, brain-dead opinion; having lived more than half my life in places where both wolves and coyotes are common, they don't scare me half as much as pet dogs or people who take a pistol hiking.

...or spiders. Man, those buggers creep me out. Spin a web and hang right across the middle of the trail at face height.

So, I guess the worst would be a giant spider with a pistol walking a dog.

dropkick
2007-06-18, 06:11
I've grown up with bears, coyotes, and mountain lions. Occasionally we would have one in the neighborhood behave badly and need putting down.
They don't really bother or scare me (much).

But I've never had to worry about anything like these wolves, they are killing dogs chained up in backyards. They are killing dogs that stray off the path for just a moment.

There was a story in the paper about a month ago about a hiker who watched his 8 year old corgi have it's guts ripped open from 10 feet away, as it tried to reach him and safety. It happened in seconds.

The rancher who's land borders the area I walk has lost 2 dogs and I-don't-know how many calves. He lost one of the dogs behind his barn, the other in his back yard (he knew wolves were around, but thought the dogs would be safe that close to home).

My dog is my family.

JAK
2007-06-18, 11:02
I think we have too many people, and too many cattle. We shouldn't be re-introducing wolves until we do something about the people and cattle first. I'm not sure what to do about all the people. You can store alot of them in cities, but that only works for awhile. Plus they do crazy things in cities like vote for the re-introduction of wolves where other people live.

Spice1
2007-06-18, 11:15
I recently finished a good book, called "The Beast in the Garden" about human habituated mountain lions and a killing spree that started with deer in the front yards, moved to dogs, then to a 17 year old athlete. My boss made me read it, it appears that we have human habituated cougars up in our hills who have been stalking kids at the bus stop down on the other side of town. Good read both on the CSI investogator level and on the political front, as there was a huge behind the scenes political battle about getting somebody to tag and track those cats.


I think we have too many people, and too many cattle. We shouldn't be re-introducing wolves until we do something about the people and cattle first. I'm not sure what to do about all the people. You can store alot of them in cities, but that only works for awhile. Plus they do crazy things in cities like vote for the re-introduction of wolves where other people live.

Store them all in cities and reintroduce wolves there. See above shorts.

BDawg
2007-06-18, 12:12
I think we have too many people, and too many cattle. We shouldn't be re-introducing wolves until we do something about the people and cattle first. I'm not sure what to do about all the people. You can store alot of them in cities, but that only works for awhile. Plus they do crazy things in cities like vote for the re-introduction of wolves where other people live.

Im with ya on that one...... Doent seem to smart to be re introding a predator to an eco system that has developed with out them for a sagnificant period of time.


as for the gun tote'n scary dog comment, A mans gotta do what man's gotta do. Id be one wolf killin mutha if my Dog Jack got ripped by one.


Drop; are their full on wolf packs developing in your area? and how close to population are you talkin?, 1K, 5K, 20K or more in population?

Kea
2007-06-18, 12:28
But I've never had to worry about anything like these wolves, they are killing dogs chained up in backyards. They are killing dogs that stray off the path for just a moment.

And those dogs were made helpless targets by the people who chained them up. Wolves target weakness and helplessness.

The average domestic dog isn't much of a fighter, generally friendly toward other dogs and dog-like creatures, and are very much in danger against a predator species.


The rancher who's land borders the area I walk has lost 2 dogs and I-don't-know how many calves. He lost one of the dogs behind his barn, the other in his back yard (he knew wolves were around, but thought the dogs would be safe that close to home).

See above about the dogs. I also think that a wolf who is attacking a human being or a domestic pet is subject to being culled--I'm absolutely FOR that. I have a much harder time shedding tears for ranchers, because of their history of shooting first and whining about everything from bears to coyotes, to buffalo--when you are raising a feed lot for carnivores, you have to expect the carnivores to come eat there. :shrugs: We've had range wars -between- ranchers over cattle versus sheep, and all manner of species hunted to extinction in the name of ranching in the world. The Kea, which is one of my favorite birds, is endangered in New Zealand because of sloppy ranching methods that led to sickness and death among the sheep(it's a much bigger, and confusing story than this), which was blamed on the keas--and ranchers are all too quick to shoot something that they percieve as a threat, real or imagined.


My dog is my family.

Exactly. I have to admit that I'd have to live my life paranoid out there, precisely because of the real danger.

Steinberger
2007-06-18, 12:55
I think my friend summed it up the best when we were talking about this same issue of the red wolf reintroduction in the Smokeys. A lot of of people were complaining about the wolves would be a potential threat to small livestock, dogs, etc. He told me: "Well the problem is, people want to live in nature but not want to have to deal with nature. If you should live that far away from civilization you should accept that their are wild animals there. The wolves were here way before us then we killed them off. If people have a problem with wolves, bears, snakes, etc. they should just go somewhere else or move to to a city. I doubt they'll see any wolves there."

Now certainly Red wolves are a different matter than Gray wolves since Red wolves usually only prey on things the size of racoons or small ungulates. but you get the idea of what he was saying.

The wolves are also essential for the health of everything else. Wolves naturally go for the weakest creatures they can find leaving the healthier.

Plus wolves are not a threat to people unless you realy piss them off and are rarely a threat to dogs if you take the right precautions. Cattle are a different story though

I have another friend who work out in some big boy scout camp in New Mexico as a summer job. Everyone in his group had rescue dogs. They used to stress to make sure you ties the dog up close at night. It was always the ones that were let loose that got attacked by cougars and cyotes.

Take-a-knee
2007-06-18, 13:44
The problem with wolves is that they are highly intelligent pack animals. The only way wolves and humans can coexist is for man to occasionally bust a cap on a wolf. When that happens, all members of that pack will henceforth avoid people, and they will teach their offspring to avoid people. Eventually a wolf will confront man and have to be dealt with, the cycle continues. Cougars are a whole 'nother can of worms. Unlike bears, and probably wolves, they don't confront or bluster, they stalk you and sink their teeth below the base of your skull, you only have a chance if they miss.

Kea
2007-06-18, 14:43
The problem with wolves is that they are highly intelligent pack animals. The only way wolves and humans can coexist is for man to occasionally bust a cap on a wolf. When that happens, all members of that pack will henceforth avoid people, and they will teach their offspring to avoid people. Eventually a wolf will confront man and have to be dealt with, the cycle continues. Cougars are a whole 'nother can of worms. Unlike bears, and probably wolves, they don't confront or bluster, they stalk you and sink their teeth below the base of your skull, you only have a chance if they miss.

Agreed. But occasionally shooting a badly behaved wolf is entirely different than what the ranchers really want, which is to play up the loss of 'countless' calves, and whatever else, so that they can go back to shooting them at will. That's just as much a political argument as any environmentalist or PETA Nazi can come up with.

I stress the 'countless', because there is no count, no real evidence, and just the word that this person has lost a bunch of calves to wolf predation. Besides, don't ranchers get compensated for those kills anyway? Perhaps worse, is there is no real recognition that ranching is a commercial enterprise. Nothing against a guy trying to make a buck, but I'm just having this hard time crying because of the loss of calves in a ranching operation that may have 1000's of head of beef cattle roaming all over the back country, often on public lands.

Jim Henderson
2007-06-18, 19:59
I am one of those not PC guys who believes if it took us thousands of years to eradicate wolves around the world, there was probably a reason. I am not for introducing wolves back into an environement where they have been eradicated. People moved in right or wrong and eradicated the wolves. To bring the wolves back would set back the reasons the people had decades if not centuries. People are here to stay and they do affect the environment. And, the people who plan these reintroductions often do more harm than good when they do it. Too much Bambi and not enough Nature of red tooth and claw.

Some family friends who run a cattle spread in Oregon/Idaho would probably say "I told you so, durn city slickers". They now have problems with Wolf depradations contrary to what the treehuggers said back when they promised the wolves would not be a problem and would not spread so far as the O/I border. They claim city people made the decisions without regard for the livelihoods of people who have lived in that area since the Oregon Trail days. The right to kill only depradating wolves does little for the rancher after he has lost a few thousand dollars worth of prize livestock. Cattle ranchers are often on the ragged edge. A few wolf kills of some expensive breeding stock can make the difference on whether they made money that year. If they get a prize bull or cow, you loose not only the cost of that animal but all the potential profit from offspring which in some cases is huge. I always wondered why people would be ranchers by choice, a brutal life.

Catching them in the act is difficult and costly. Our friends ranch over several thousand acres of really rough land, just like the old Westerns. To be able to arrive before or during an attack would be just about impossible. All they have is a carcass with characteristic marks and perhaps witnesses who saw a wolf in the area. Usually the only remedy is to hire a helicopter. Ever wonder how much it costs to get a helicopter and shooter out into the wilderness at least 90 miles from any major city? Our friends know, it is not cheap.

When ever I visit, me and the old lady of the ranch really get into "those dad blum treehuggers and the wolves". She gets really worked up. It affects her livelihood. The old man just says" Shoot em". Even my wife the "save the whales" person of the family lends a sympathetic ear once she knows what is involved.

I have a similar argument about California and halting mountain lion hunting. Since we outlawed hunting back in the nineties, mountain lion populations ahve grown and they have become a hazard to every day people, not just outdoorsmen. Now we have mountain lions stalking and killing people in local parks and biycycle trails, not all that far from "Civilization". Just last week there was a panic in a park about a cougar in a park not far from the city. Trails were closed and people have been keeping an eye on their kids and pets.

I have even been warned about some of the trails I like to hike on. A person was killed last year near that area, I think she was just a jogger on a bike trail. The saying is "you will know a mountain lion was stalking you, when you feel their teeth in your back". Joy. Probably over reacting but I never used to worry about such things when I hiked foolishly alone in my youth. Then the risk was injury. Now the risk is lunch. Now we have yet another reason not to hike alone and I worry about my early teenagers who probably present a much juicier target than my old, leathery gristly body.

One last not PC comment, anyone notice how aggressive Coyotes have become? Used to be it was rare to see coyotes, but you knew they were in the area. Now, I have been stalked in my sleeping bag, interesting they knew what my gun was when I drew it as a last step after yelling and waving failed. A park ranger in Death Valley last year seemed awful nervous about coyotes that wandered around the campgrounds right thru areas where people were not far. I had some wandering on the roads around my camp within rock throwing distance and I throw like a sissy. I think the ranger is nervous that eventually the coyotes will get one of the kids in the campground. I think much of this problem is people feeding the animals, but some of it I think is lack of hunting pressure. I think the coyotes who ran from me recognized my gun, good thing for me, but what if they had arrived before I was awake?

Oh well, not PC again, but I do like ragging on city folks, even tho I are one,

Jim Henderson

Spice1
2007-06-18, 21:48
Steinberger hit my sentiments exactly. If you want to complain about wildlife, stay in the city. If you don't want cougars in your neighborhood, don't feed them by encouraging deer, or leaving your dog out overnight. I'm looking at a brutal pack to protect my livestock. Goats and Shepards. I have considered wolfhounds, but the heat here is too much, pitbulls will make my neighbors more scared of me than the cougars.

And as it is illegal to hunt a cougar, I am trying to accquire beanbag shot for my 20 guage. Apparently, beanbags and airhorns do quite a bit to deter cougars from coming into an area. Not as much as the 30/6 I have leaning by the 20 gauge, but I didn't move to the front range to be away from wildlife, I moved here to be in the middle of it, so if I can get the bastards to stay away from my chickens without killing them, I will.

Oh yeah, and despite the above, I consider myself a tree hugger. I learned it when the Army made me spend so much time in the woods. Trees don't slap you when you cop a feel. <grin>:aetsch:

I do feel for the ranchers losing livestock to wolves, (I want a wolf; wolves are the only predators that keep cougar populations under control. It reminds me of that old nursery rhyme about the woman who swallowed a spider.) Frankly, I consider humans to be part of nature and since we are the only predators capable of keeping wolf populations in check, it all comes around. Shoot if they bother ya, eventually, they will stick to deer or hang on your wall.

Iceman
2007-06-19, 00:29
Actually, Steinbergers remarks confused me a bit.

If people have a problem with wolves, bears, snakes, etc. they should just go somewhere else or move to to a city. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. I have a problem with wolves. By nature, humans change nature. Always have, always will. Not always pretty. Humans have replaced the wolf as top dog on the food chain in the woods. I hunt, Billybob hunts, lot's of us hunt. We thin, heck we over thin game populations..... Add wolves, and I cannot hunt. For the sole reason of hunting competition and reduced deer and elk populations, I vote not to encourage Wolf populations. I see where ranchers have a gripe. Hikers would be advised to carry a big gun.


"The wolves are also essential for the health of everything else. " As I stated above, we replaced the wolf. Without the wolf, we are able to maintain healthy game populations. Remember, the wolf never did range across all lands, and these areas had healthy game populations.

I enjoy the thought of the wolf, but it is sort of like that new prison they are considering 10 miles from your home. You like prisons, but not in your neck of the woods.

I would argue that the reason we are having more encounters with wolves, bears, and cougars is because we are not hunting these animals. To hunt these animals, to have any chance of success, you need dogs. Not really sporting, but the truth. Our state is so thick with brush, often you can't see ten feet in front of you. (Right Jimtanker?) Also, here in my state, the liberal-tree-hugging-cat-loving-tofu-eating-save-the-whale-koom-by-ya crowd all voted to end hound hunting out here. No more hound hunters. Now, cougar, bear, coyote populations could care less about humans, even consider them food. I argue that you put the hunt on these critters,with dogs, and they learn to stay wide of humans.

GGS
2007-06-19, 04:35
Vey interesting topic. I just viewed the movie - and read the book - "Never Cry Wolf", where the wolf population was being blamed for the drastic decline in the great caribou herds of the North. Of course the truth was the decline was due to Man, not wolf. The wolf was proven to be a timid animal that only preyed on the weak and sick caribou, not the bloodthirsty creature depicted by such stories as "White Fang". But because the populace - and the government - believed otherwise, a bounty was placed on wolf pelts and thus the wolf was almost hunted out of existence.

I believe that wolves, like black bears, can coexist in the wilderness with Man largely without incident. I also believe that in both species there will be a few animals who will lose their fear of Man and cause problems. Perhaps relocating them will help. Perhaps they will have to be destroyed. If destroying the animal is necessary, then do it. It's worked great for the black bear population, black bears have thrived alongside of man now for years and serious incidents have been minimal if not nonexistent.

I DO believe that to coexist with the wolf man must make some lifestyle changes. Using the bear as an example, man has learned to eliminate food sources such as dumps and garbage to keep bears from associating humans with food. This has eliminated the vast majority of the bear problem, even with grizzlys. So I think we must make changes for the wolf. Bringing your dog inside at night [where it belongs!] would certainly be better than chaining it helplessly behind the woodshed, aka like the sheep bait used in "Jurassic Park". Etcetera.

I also agree with Iceman. A permit hunting system that includes hunting with dogs is a great way to cull problem animals and keep a healthy fear of man and dogs in the remaining wolves. States that have banned this form of hunting have been lulled by the sympathy cries of a city populace seduced by horror stories spoken by anti-hunting groups. The benefits of such hunting were never considered in their decision. [Example, read "Understanding Michigan's Black Bear" by Richard P Smith]

Take-a-knee
2007-06-19, 11:08
GCS, I largely agree with your post, the problem is, these wolf people have a totally different vision. They don't respect private property, they are marxists. They don't think anyone should own a dog, or much of anything else. They are rabidly against the private ownership of guns, they think we should all be disarmed, ala China or the USSR, remember they are marxists. They see people as a parasite, and they aren't ashamed to say so. They refer to their vision as the "Re-Wilding" of the world. They are no less fanactical, and only slightly less militant, than an Al Queda shooter. Think Unabomber. Like Ice said, the only way to control these critters is with hound hunting, and if you think these wolf nuts will agree to that you are smoking some good stuff. I personally think that having Grizzlies and wolves roaming the Rockies is cool, but I don't live there. This is a perfect example of state's rights being trampled upon by the feds.

Jim Henderson
2007-06-19, 20:49
Quote "black bears have thrived alongside of man now for years and serious incidents have been minimal if not nonexistent"


Hmm must not read much of the news. A quickie search of ABC News webpage shows this...

http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=bear%20attack&type=

Pages and pages of articles about animal attacks and strangely sports and Iraq war news, weird.

Most recent incident was in Utah June 18 just yesterday. Kid was eaten, I guess the bear thrives. Unfortunately for the bear, he was later killed so guess they don't thrive.

People are encroaching on wild animal habitat. But we are also living in habitat that has had the predators eliminated. Reintroducing these predators just invites problems. Man is here to stay, much contrary to the wishes of the Re-Wilding crowd. What was the name of the guy who seriously thinks the world population would benefit from about a 90% reduction?

This is the type of person I object to pushing agendas that put other people out of their livelihoods that they and their people have doing for generations. They think it is just wonderful to put nature back to the way it was and not to worry that people will suffer financial and occasional physical damage from agendas pushed from their easy chair in the city.

Either way, we need to be cautious when we go in the woods or even a woody city park area. 2 legged and 4 legged predators are now amongst us. I think more controlled hunting would put the fear of man back into whatever populations we have. Problem now is that animals either see us as convenient sources of food or at least a non threatening creature, so attacks will continue especially since us city slickers are going into the woods and more of a problem, the woods is coming to the city.

I don't think reintroduction is a good idea. Man does not seem to know how to properly balance and control reintroductions. There have been many cases where man reintroduced a predator and the local population of deer etc then takes a big hit and things become unbalanced the other way. Forget the articles but a lot of the wolf reintroduction areas have seen dramatic drops in fawns and younger deer etc. Deer have been on their own comeback trail and now are even problems in some areas. Unfortunately the treehuggers don't seem to want to reintroduce wolves into places with troublesome deer heards Like many eastern states. I would love to see packs of wolves roaming around Valley Forge, PA. They certainly have a lot of deer. Ideal wolf habitat if you ask me.

Too many starry eyed people who think wild wolves back in the wilds is a romantic wonderful thing. Those who have to deal with it don't seem so delighted.

I guess in a nutshell, my opinion is, if they are gone then leave them gone especially if man has moved in. If it is wild and in the natural state then man needs to be wary. And a controlled hunt thrown in wouldn't hurt either.

Just my not PC opinion, I ramble way too much,

Jim Henderson

GGS
2007-06-20, 02:40
Jim, that's definitely terrible news about the young boy. My heart goes out to his family.

A follow up article states that the bear was already causing problems but the seriousness was miscommunicated therefore the bear was not destroyed. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3295117

I simply ask that we put this tragedy in perspective. Less than 50 people have been killed since 1900 by black bears in all of North America. We are 90,000 times more likely to be murdered by our fellow man (The Ultimate Predator) than to be killed by a black bear. You have a greater chance of dying from domestic dogs, bees, and lightning than from a bruin. See http://www.bear.org/Black/Articles/How_Dangerous_are_Black_Bears.html

My study of wolves is not yet as intensive as bears so I'm afraid I don't have similar statistics. However so far everything I've read indicates that wolves too are timid. Our fear of them being reintroduced is not justified.

Take-a-knee
2007-06-20, 08:54
There was a guy killed by a wolf pack in Canada a year or two ago outside a small town. Under Canadian gun laws it is damn near impossible to legally own and carry a handgun. Wolves don't know the law, they do know they've never been shot at...go figure.

dropkick
2007-06-20, 09:00
GGS,
Most of what you'll find online about wolves is misinformation and propaganda.

I was looking up statistics about livestock killed by wolves last year to show to my uncle, as he was badly misinformed about them and I thought it should be remedied.

Most of what I found was wrong. When I compared what was reported on most websites with government reports they didn't add up. Even some of the government reports didn't agree. While I will admit personal prejudice against the wolves, all the reports that had lower amounts of depredation were either on sites that were obviously pro-wolf or were part of reports that were either trying to limit any culling of the packs or defending their reintroduction.

The majority of the reports that had higher rates were mostly lists of facts and were neither for or against wolves. I tended to lend more belief to these. Especially as in some cases the numbers on the lower reports didn't even cover the amount of wolf kills that had been reported in the paper in just our area.

It is also difficult to prove that wolves have been killing your livestock, as they require proof that wolves are the culprits before it is reported as such. So the numbers reported are lower than actual. They either have to be seen doing it (seeing them stalking around the herds and then having calves/sheep/llama killed isn't enough) or there has to be physical evidence around the carcass, and if it hasn't rained it's tough to find foot prints.

GGS
2007-06-20, 13:15
Let me dodge the whole livestock killing thing for the moment...

Let's just look at some numbers.

I'll take my home state of Michigan as an example.

According to the US Fish and Wildlife service, there are an est 434 wolves in Michigan http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/recovery/r3wolfct.htm. They share the same state with approx 15,000-19,000 black bears http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10890-105034--,00.html. Minnesota has around 3000 wolves and 30000 black bears.

Now as a Michigan hiker and camper I can attest that over the last 4 hears I have shared the woods with approx 19000 black bears and I haven't seen diddly squat of any of 'em. None. I found one torn stump where (presumably) a bear was eating ants and that's it.

So when I realize that I'm sharing those same woods with only 434 wolves... You know, I just can't work myself up to worry about them.

I'm not saying that wolf _incidents_ have not occured, just like I'm not saying bear incidents have not occured. I'm sure they have. The fact is there just isn't enough wolves left in the wild - even if they reach the program's target populations - to cause a wolf _problem_. The numbers just aren't there to support it, folks.

GGS
2007-06-20, 14:40
There was a guy killed by a wolf pack in Canada a year or two ago outside a small town. Under Canadian gun laws it is damn near impossible to legally own and carry a handgun. Wolves don't know the law, they do know they've never been shot at...go figure.

Here are three articles on the subject:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/11/10/wolf051110.html
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1132&dept_id=157670&newsid=15868113&PAG=461&rfi=9
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2005/11/10/wolf-attack051110.html

In one officials believe the wolves might have been habituated through garbage feeding to lose their fear of man.

The articles note that there is no other record of a wolf related death for 100 years.

I do agree with Take-A-Knee, having a hunting season for wolves is a great way to keep a healthy fear of humans in the remaining population. That is good for both wolves and man.

I had heard this guy was hand feeding them or something similarly stupid, however I can find no confirmation of that.

dropkick
2007-06-21, 03:58
Let me dodge the whole livestock killing thing for the moment...

Let's just look at some numbers.

I'll take my home state of Michigan as an example.

According to the US Fish and Wildlife service, there are an est 434 wolves in Michigan http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/recovery/r3wolfct.htm. They share the same state with approx 15,000-19,000 black bears http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10890-105034--,00.html. Minnesota has around 3000 wolves and 30000 black bears.

Now as a Michigan hiker and camper I can attest that over the last 4 hears I have shared the woods with approx 19000 black bears and I haven't seen diddly squat of any of 'em. None. I found one torn stump where (presumably) a bear was eating ants and that's it.

So when I realize that I'm sharing those same woods with only 434 wolves... You know, I just can't work myself up to worry about them.

I'm not saying that wolf _incidents_ have not occured, just like I'm not saying bear incidents have not occured. I'm sure they have. The fact is there just isn't enough wolves left in the wild - even if they reach the program's target populations - to cause a wolf _problem_. The numbers just aren't there to support it, folks.


Minnesota never having been part of the "recovery" program has been able to managed their own wolves. They shoot from 400 to 600 problem wolves every year.

This is one of the numbers you have to dig for to find. Many pro wolf sites say "Minnesota has lots of wolves but they don't have problems." They don't mention that the state kills almost 20% of the population every year due to the wolves killing stock and pets.

As I said before most of the reports on wolves you can get online are slanted toward the pro wolf and most contain misinformation.