What would you do about the wolves?

impact: Hm! you mean taken by "eminent domain"? Folks were given "an offer they couldn't refuse" for land they owned free and clear? No, I didn't hear that happened a lot in recent years, but I would be grateful for any details/source you may happen to know of though. I try to keep up broadly speaking at least with resource management stuff.

The thing that I have often heard in the past is that there is some fair controversy over how the BLM lands are managed. Lumber rights, mineral rights, water and grazing rights, (basically leasing for specific exploitation uses) seem to be sold at handout prices... then you have stuff like clearcut logging of forests and overgrazing of prairies - essentially the people who rent the land don't really pay much or own it, and so really have no stake in taking care of it - they just try to extract as much money as they can, as fast as they can... meanwhile, that land actually belongs to everyone but is being trashed. Because these lands are often so desolate in the first place, not many folks aware of that... if a company clearcut Central Park in NYC, or left huge piles of toxic mining tailings just outside a Dallas subdivison, I think folks would notice, and there might just be a little noise made.
 
Last edited:
- I can't understand why that would be true. When the first Europeans came here, there were wolves and mountain lions all over, and yet there were vast numbers of grazers.
Click to expand...
An ecosystem MUST be in balance, especially in predator / prey ratio, to survive. When white men came to America with firearms, the beginning of the end arrived too. There was wholesale slaughter of wildlife. Trainloads of men crossed the great plains with the sole purpose of shooting tens of thousands of buffalo from train cars for sport. Even the great Teddy Roosevelt did his part. He hunted the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and was angered that mountain lions were taking their share of the spoils. At that time, North Rim had the highest population of lions per square mile in the world. He hired a hunter named Jimmy Owens to kill lions, and kill lions he did. Over 500 lions were taken by him. What's the problem with that, you ask? Have you ever heard of high-lining? Rangers were finding every bit of green from the ground to 12 feet high or more gone in the Spring as if a huge mower had gone through. What was happening was a massive explosion of population in the mule deer herd, and they ate everything in sight. The reason for the 12+ feet height was that they were standing on the winter snows, on their hind feet, to graze. That's called high-lining. Eventually they ate that too, and there was massive starvation and disease that affected all species, and the ecosystem was almost completely destroyed, all because the predators were killed off, and the balance disrupted. The balance has been destroyed all over the country, and that's why hunting is necessary. We have to take the place of the predators, but we're doing a poor job of it. When things are balanced, predators take the old, sick, and weak first, leaving the strong to pass on their strength to the next generation. Native Americans have a saying: "The wolf kills the elk, but it is the wolf that makes the elk strong". They understood this. But what do we as hunters take today? Do we shoot the old, the sick, the weak? Hell, no. We go for the biggest, healthiest, most magnificent of the breed, and leave the lesser beasts to breed. In time, we weaken the elk, mule deer, etc. as a species. These are more susceptible to diseases like rabies, distemper, and even plague. Today, outbreaks of these diseases can eventually be traced to man's intervention. Bottom line: we simply cannot take the place of the predators. The balance must be re-established and that can only be done by the careful re-introduction of predators. Otherwise, we are only just now seeing the tip of the iceberg.
 
Back to the wolves ;) IIRC in Minnesota, ranchers could submit claims for reimbursement for any livestock actually poached by wolves, so they would not be out any $$$. I thought this was an interesting compromise.

If I really thought that the wolves were a threat to populations of livestock or wild grazers, I would say cut em back, fine. It's just that there are so few wolves - hundreds? in the lower 48, and so many livestock - according to the USDA, in 2002 there were about:
- 6 million sheep
- 60 million hogs and pigs
- 95 million cattle
- 335 million chickens (over 8 billion sold that year)

... it's just hard to understand how there'd be any significant impact, even if every wolf ate only livestock. In the US, you have 280 million people averaging 150lb each (check that - in the US, it's probably 220lb these days :o :D), and a few hundred wolves, averaging 100lb each... If you just consider us to be competing predators, how much could the wolves possibly be stealing any significant fraction of our food? :confused:
 
Canadian Wolves: Canada is estimated to have about 55,000 wolves. And yet, Canada, to my knowledge, also raises livestock on a commercial scale, quite profitably. How is that possible, with so many wolves, if wolves make livestock raising impossible or at least unprofitable? :confused:

They also have 25,000 grizzlies in Canada - that other livestock slaughtering machine, that can kill a fullgrown bull just by looking at it! (ok, I made that last clause up :p )

Heck, the climate alone must be brutal on livestock, greatly reducing production (you won't find livestock in Iceland for example), and what with the wilds just teeming with beef/mutton/pork slaughtering wolf-gluttons and bear-gluttons, it's a wonder that there are any livestock in existance in Canada - how is it possible? Something is wrong with this picture.
 
What would you do about the wolves?

Shoot everyone of them that cross my sights. Damn things are overunning us up here and an average pack takes down a full grown moose or caribou every three days.
 
Carbine-
I don't think anyone is making the claim that wolves threaten our food supply. They threaten the livelihood of ranchers in specific areas. Minn is already looking to reneg on reimbursement since the funds set aside based on loss estimates have not been near enough in the past couple of years.

Bottom line is this:
If a wolf comes into your back yard to eat your chickens and dog, should you have a moral right to kill it? If so, should ranchers not have the same rights on their own lands? I see no reason to punish them simply because their back yards are larger. They paid for those lands; they own 'em. They have every right to protect their livestock.
Rich
 
Well, if the wolf is actually causing losses, I'd agree. It's just that in my opinion, many (not all) people get kind of hysterical when it comes to anything with teeth and claws.

I knew a guy in NH that was very nervous because he saw a fox on his property. Didn't admit that of course, as he was a "tough guy"... but it was plain to see - he said "hey! I don't want carnivores on my property!". No, he didn't have any animals or anything else that could even conceivably be attacked by the fox - he was just afraid... which I thought was pretty darned rediculous. Here is this big guy, and a critter the size of a house cat, and he is getting all jumpy and upset. :rolleyes:
 
impact, the BLM didn't gain new, previously privately-held lands under the Clinton administration. There was the closing of BLM lands to other uses in SE Utah (if I have the location correct) via a National Monument designation, for example. This closed it grazing and mining--particularly for mining of antracite coal.

There have been changes in grazing "allowables", and in many areas a reduction was warranted. Others? Subject to legitimate argument.

I'm basically pro-wolf, with the proviso that if I identify a particular wolf or pack that's killing my livestock, I should be able to protect my property.

Art
 
Rangefinder,

If ranchers should just accept predators as the cost of doing business, should employers accept theives in the company? Should shopkeepers just accept shoplifters?

I think that a wolf pelt brings a couple of hundred bucks if put up when prime. Give the rancher a permit to shoot the wolf, sell the pelt, and he has made more than he would have on the calf. Or sell wolf permits to trappers, with the money going to offset livestock losses.
 
/*... it's just hard to understand how there'd be any significant impact, even if every wolf ate only livestock.*/

One car being stolen and chopped isn't a big deal either, unless it happens to be your car.

Same with cattle. It wouldn't be a big deal if you owned all of the 95 million cattle, but if you only owned a couple of hundred, one is a BIG deal.
 
Artsmom>> I'm not opposed to permits and regulation, just like any other animal. But the extermination way of thinking is what upsets me, ESPECIALLY whan it's on PUBLIC land. I've seen too many instances where a herd of cattle is released on BLM (legally) and the owner of said cattle has the attitude that it suddenly belongs to him (several of my hunting areas growing up were closed off illegally by people with that attitude). And the "shoot, shovel, and shut-up" thing just makes me wild.

I guess in all honesty two things are a factor in my personal feelings, and wolf management is only part of it. Yes, there is the factor of protecting one's livelyhood, but it had been mismanaged on all levels for so long that it got completely out of control. In a way I have a bit of a personal vendeta against ranchers I've dealt with, and (unfortunately, but I admit) it bleeds over to my general attitude. For example, where I live now--110 miles of highway and the only accessible route where I currently live is surrounded by public land that is also designated as "free range". Every year there is an average of 10-12 accidents on hwy 95 and hwy 276 here in southern Utah involving a vehicle and a cow (both recieve HEAVY traffic from March through October). According to state law, the driver is responsible for repaying the loss of the cow AND 3 offspring it would have potentially produced at a later time, averaging around $5000. NOT to mention a totaled vehicle, or worse, injury to the driver and passengers, occasionally death. ON A STATE HIGHWAY! I'll also need to mention most of the cattle in the area are owned by individuals within the state government. This is an example of laws to protect the livelyhood of the rancher in my area, so the "free range" status of the area will not be changed, nor will the laws governing it.

Sorry this went a little off-topic from wolf management, I guess I'm just mad at the cattle industry in general.

OH, and I had an Alaskan Timberwolf that was put down by the state just because it was suspected that he was part wolf--it's the only reason they could muster quickly. The later revised excuse was that wolf and wolf hybrids were potential rabies carriers and he needed to be checked---the only way of course was to cut off his head and check his brain for swelling. I had to drive an hour to pick up his body and another two to pick up his head in order to bury him. Oh, and no trace of rabies was found.
 
I'd study them. Forever.

Why? Because it is a neat lifetime occupation; living out in the bush on someone else's money, driving, boating and flying around etc. All on someone else's money.

I mean we will never really know enough about them - hence we must have perpetual research. Yes, I'd study them.
 
Rangefinder,

As far as I am concerned, the rancher should have to pay the motorist damages if his livestock is involved in an accident on a public road, as well as a fine for endangering the public. I think that is inherently unfair for a motorist to be responsible for the safety of wandering livestock. I share your sense of unfairness with what you describe.

Cattlemen should be responsible for cattle, Fish & Wildlife should be responsible for wildlife, since they both make their livings off their respective animals.
 
We just had a federal judge decide that the wolf MUST be reintroduced to vermont, N.H. and Maine due to a lawsuit by a bunch of envrironmental whacko's in vermont. They claim the wolf will not hurt the deer population or livestock. These idiots have never seen what a coyote does to wildlife or domestic animals, or perhaps they have and dont care. If we all sit in a circle and hold hands and sing CUM-BYE-YAH the world will be a better place, love will replace evil and animals will live in harmony.
 
N.H.Yankee - how many wolves were in the US when the Europeans arrived??? And you realize of course that the numbers of prey animals were much greater then than they are now? How many wolves are north of you, up in Canada??? Have you heard of any lack of deer/moose/elk in Canada? Is it impossible to raise livestock in Canada, which has 55,000 wolves?

There is nothing to fear. If wolves are reintroduced, I am sure there will be some level of predation on deer as well as livestock. But, it will not threaten the numbers of either one. It's real easy - just look back in history to when they were all over the lower 48, or look north today into Canada to see what will happen.
 
You've got to feel sorry for the wolves. Much of their former habitat has been taken over by big blue cities. :(

I'm all for restocking them in Eastern Massachusetts, Southern California, the Chesapeake Bay area, southeast Florida, the formerly swampy areas between Virginia and Maryland, down the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. Not only would they be safer from hunters and angry ranchers but they would provide urban children with the chance to see ecological balance at work. :D
 
Last edited:
Yep, everyone knows that the Canadians are forced to stay indoors 24 hours a day to reduce attacks from the wolves and grizzlies there. Frequently they fall prey in their driveways as they step in/out of their cars trying to get to their safe havens though. Fortunately, the sound of 20 million whacko Canadians holding hands and singing "Coom-bay-ah" drowns out the screams of their neighbors as they are devoured by these bloodthirsty predators though. :rolleyes: Phew! thank God we live in the US! I am afraid to travel to Canada where all those big teeth and claws are *wets pants and gets into the fetal postion at the mere thought of a predator, clutching his rifle and trembling in fear*. :eek:

P.S. Sarcasm meets with sarcasm :rolleyes:
 
CarbineCaleb said:
Have you heard of any lack of deer/moose/elk in Canada? Is it impossible to raise livestock in Canada, which has 55,000 wolves?
There is nothing to fear. If wolves are reintroduced, I am sure there will be some level of predation on deer as well as livestock. But, it will not threaten the numbers of either one.
Click to expand...
Carbine-
This is simply naive and patently untrue.

The Canadians don't exactly have a love affair with wolves; and they are hardly living in "harmony" with the rest of the pretty forest animals:
http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/wolves/evol.html

What you will see on this site is a proudly reported Government history of wolf "management" results over a 60 year period:
- Step 1: Reintroduce and protect the wolves
- Step 2: The wolves significantly reduce ungulate numbers so we ban hunting those ungulates
- Step 3: The prey continues to dwindlle, so we retrict human travel in those areas.
- Step 4: The prey population is depleted to the point that the wolves cannot be supported so they eat each other and starve. (Of course, in many parts of the US, they'll eat livestock before starving....then the "bad" ranchers will shoot them and be arrested.)
- Step 5: "Equilibrium" achieved. Of course, that equilibrium is defined thusly: "natural wolf-ungulate systems tend to stabilize at low numbers."....and this is a good thing?

By the mid-1970s, the management perspective began to change again. Wolves had returned to abundance, livestock problems had increased, and hunters complained of too many wolves and too few ungulates. Studies in Alaska, Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan, quantified wolf kill rates and revealed situations where predation was the dominant depressant of ungulate populations
Click to expand...
In Alberta, wolves returned to public prominence during the early 1980s. In 1982, Albertans reported more sightings, including packs in or near settlements. Livestock kills were up, and hunters renewed their complaints. There was no doubt that wolves had taken advantage of favorable conditions. Biologists reported die-offs of moose from ticks across a wide belt stretching from east-central to northwestern Alberta during the preceding winter. Wolves apparently found a plentiful food supply, which allowed high reproduction and survival of pups leading to resurgence in populations. Resulting public discussion prompted government to announce several provisional wolf management strategies in January 1983.
Click to expand...
Strategies were designed to encourage a trapping harvest of 30 percent of the provincial wolf population. During 1983-1985, wolf trapping instruction and complimentary equipment were provided to trappers.
Click to expand...
During this period, investigations of Alberta's only migratory herd of woodland caribou in Willmore Wilderness-Grande Cache, revealed wolf predation was a likely contributor to the herd's decline. The caribou, which numbered 1000 to 1600 in the 1960s, had plummeted to about 300 by 1980. Caribou were classified as threatened throughout the province, and the hunting season was closed in 1981, but the herd did not respond. Ten of 12 deaths of radioed caribou were thought to be predator-caused, and wolves were implicated in several of them. To assist the herd, the provincial caribou plan of 1986 recommended wolf reductions as one component of restoration.
Click to expand...
control of traffic to reduce mortalities on the Grande Cache highway.
Click to expand...
By the mid-1980s, wildlife managers were reporting fewer wolves on winter moose surveys. This decline was not unexpected because many of the northern herds were at low densities and could support few wolves. Rapid declines had been observed in Minnesota, Isle Royale, and in Jasper National Park following the demise of principal prey species. In these situations, wolves invade neighboring territories, fight and kill one another, and starve. This course of events undoubtedly occurred in parts of northern Alberta. Scientists postulate that natural wolf-ungulate systems tend to stabilize at low numbers.
Click to expand...

Anybody who believes wolves can simply be air-dropped into the US, without controlled hunting programs, had best go out and take some pictures of our Elk Herds now. Pass 'em on to your kids.....chances are, they'll never have the opportunity to see what you photographed in the wild.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top