What would you do about the wolves?

Well Rich - you have indicated that it's not always smooth sailing, at least in modern times, with predators. Fair enough. If the Canadians kill off every last wolf and grizzly though to approach the American methods of simply eliminating all predators, I for one think it would be tragic. Predators are no more "good" or "bad" than prey are. On both sides of that equation, the players are just out there, trying to survive.

In the case of your caribou - they apparently had an isolated and marginal herd in one province - hmmm, wonder how that happened? ...that became threatened by increasing wolf populations. That's not the whole story of wolves in Canada though.

When I went to England, I visited the countryside and the small towns, and was struck by the landscape, which has been thoroughly tamed. It's all just one big garden. It may be green, but it's anything but natural. I would hate to see Canada become a bigger England.

I am not unduely afraid of predators, and I have slept alone, in wolf and grizzly country, miles from anyone and without even a tent to cover me. I am no hero though - lots of people do that - backpackers. And yes, I read "Night of the Grizzlies" and all those tall tales in "Outdoor Life" and "Field and Stream" when I was back in grade school.

To me, viewing predators as cuddly is naive', viewing them as evil, or inherently dangerous and incompatible with man, is equally naive'. Biologists, who study animals for a living, tend to have a more neutral perspective on critters of all types, different than the tree-huggers, and different than the ranchers. They just see them for what they are. I am also a proponent of that perspective.

I like life, in all it's variety - eradicating it, is not, in my view, a positive thing.
 
Carbine-
I'm not arguing for extinction here. But the exact OPPOSITE of that absurdity is what is going on right now and what you seem to be praising. Wolves have virtually no natural predators on the North American Continent; they are voracious killers; and, when food is plentiful as it is in the north and west, they breed like bunnies.

Alberta's experience is exactly what will happen if we don't have a controlled program for keeping them in check. I note a number of biases in your position that cause me to think you don't do much hunting; apologies if that's inaccurate. But it seems as though you believe there are only two alternatives, Kill 'Em All or Protect Them All. That is simply not how hunting works in this nation.

In virtually every State, 90% hunter fee and donation funded, we have game management that includes herd counts, careful license apportionment and extreme punishment for poaching. It works pretty damned well, too. See, we're the Ultimate Predator, but our effect is self limited by laws, fines and jail time. (One of the few things I believe our government does right well).

Introduce a predator without constraint and they will certainly change the face of the ecologic mix.....but not in the manner you have claimed in your earlier posts. One simple way to control the wolf population here while allowing them to flourish on public lands is to allow ranchers to kill every single wolf that shows on their lands.....wolves are territorial and, by definition, have therefore claimed that rancher's land as their own hunting grounds. (Baiting and Bait-Trapping should be punishable in these circumstances.)

Another step is for the states to do exactly what they do with white-tail, mulie, elk, moose, bear, duck, quail and bobcat: Manage the numbers with carefully controlled licensing in designated areas at designated seasons.

Make more sense than the current "endangered" myth?
Rich
 
If wolves and grizzlies get established in the lower 48, I would not be against hunting them, any more than I am against hunting other animals.

When I talk about predator eradication - for decades, that was official Federal policy, with bounties to provide incentive - it wan't managed hunting, it was organized extermination. They were shot, trapped, poisoned, bludgeoned (the young) - you name it, if it killed 'em, it was used. That's where all the wolves and grizzlies went.

Now they are beginning to get reestablished in some locations in the lower 48, due to some new efforts in recent decades. Many people say, kill 'em all - it's not possible to live with them. All I am saying is, yes it is possible to coexist with predators. Just will take a little thought and effort is all.

I don't know if bears and wolves mix it up - bears aren't pure carnivores, and meat is if I recall a minority of their diet, often scavenged, so they may overlap without any competing interests. I do know that wolves and mountain lions kill one another, and in fact wolves and wolves kill one another. They are competitors, and are territorial as you said, and defend their territory against invading rival packs. By the way, many people say that coyotes are out of control today - as competitiors, one thing wolves do, is keep down the coyote population to livable levels. :D
 
OK, we're basically on the same page now.

But I will point out:
1) The Policy of Eradication of any domestic species of animal or plant in this nation is decades since dead and will never return.

2) I have not seen anyone here argue for "eradication"; nor have I ever heard such statement from any hunter or rancher I know......that includes the only man I know who ever shot one in defense and told .gov to "shove it".

3) Wolves will kill wolves over territory, yes. But the weaker packs will eventually move further away....that's how they propagate. Only after they've decimated their primary food source will they tend to hunt other wolves for food.....and they most certainly WILL decimate their primary food source unless checked by man.
Rich
 
State controls

Nice if each state had more control over the come back of the wolf. In some areas in the U.P. of Michigan the wolf is again becoming a problem. They take down calves, sheep, chickens and anything they can get. I know first hand that these wolves don't have enough fear of humans again. When we look back at history of game and managment we can learn from our wrongs and rights. The Black Bear in Michigan is hunted on a close monitor system. The state makes some good revenue on the circus of handing out tags. I think the states could manage it's own wolf issues with a regulated and close watched system. Seems like another simple one to me.......But then again Michigan can't even secure a legal Dove hunting season. Millions of the birds are here but the small group of animal rights activist are working at it......... It is now a dead issue until it goes up for a future vote........

Ignorant people scare me........... Yep, I may as well be ignorant but not to the degree of that insanity...... ;)
 
One old fashioned way of discouraging wolves and coyotes is to get a German Shepherd or Great Pyranees or two (or any of the other dogs developed as flock guarders)... my understanding is, although low-tech, when properly trained, these guys really work - and they're on the job, even when the farmer is elsewhere or sleeping.
 
Agreed. Same holds true of Cattle Dogs and Aussie Shepherds.

No problem in lush, densely livestocked areas or when the rancher needs to work the herd. But dogs tend to need an active job....herding and the like. They generally will not simply patrol 5 square miles of barren cattle land looking for trouble....at least not day in and day out.

As I understand it, the nature of ranching is that you really aren't out there "tending" every herd on a daily basis. Our TX hunting lease is a 140K acre cattle ranch....count that 11X20 miles! Imagine how many dogs you'd need to control that? And how many more ranch hands you'd need to control the dogs? Imagine the cost of raising, training, feeding and vet bills for the dogs alone!

Besides, the dogs really don't impact the wolf numbers. They just encourage them to move onto your neighbor's property. That's not game management.
Rich
 
Hmmm... well, not being a rancher, this is getting around the edges of what I know... but I think with the dogs, you have your hyperactive, hypersmart little guys (like Border Collies) whose job it is to keep the animals more or less organized, and also to move them onto fresh pasture or into an enclosure. Then you have your laid back, big brutes, like the Pyranees, that I think just lie about among the animals, and keep a sharp eye for trouble, providing security if needed. Like you're saying, I don't think they really patrol and keep the land predator free, so much as go where the animals go and keep them safe.

At least from what I read about German Shepherds (used to have one), they have the energy, endurance and intellect to do the herding, but also the strength and courage to do the guarding. I haven't really heard about German Shepherds being used for this kind of work in modern times though - more like city jobs - security guard, bomb/drug sniffer, seeing eye dog. Maybe in Germany someone would still breed and train them for livestock duties?
 
i find it interesting that most folks who advocate bringing the wolves back usually live quite a distance from where said wolves will actually be. of course CarbineCaleb, i have no idea where you are, so you may live with the wolves, you may not.

but ...
Hmmm... well, not being a rancher
Click to expand...
indicates to me that you are so gung-ho about bringing the wolves back because they will have no negative impact in your life. perhaps you enjoy going to Yellowstone every few years and are satisfied knowing that wolves are living there.

alot different than actually living with the wolves.

One old fashioned way of discouraging wolves and coyotes is to get a German Shepherd or Great Pyranees or two
Click to expand...
are you seriously advocating heading off a pack of a dozen or more wild wolves with a couple of domesticated dogs? it sounds like a suicide mission to me.

as far as wolves and bear (polar) in Canada, perhaps that is why the area is so sparsley populated, along with the harsh weather conditions.

you've got to be one tough SOB to make a living in that wilderness.
 
you may live with the wolves, you may not.
Click to expand...
Well, there are no wolves here in MA. But there is talk of introducing them in ME, and I am less than an hour from there. I advocate that - think I saw one up there at sundown in fact, although there are no confirmed resident populations there. If I thought it'd be accepted in MA, I'd advocate that too. We have black bear, but most people seem more afraid of wolves for some reason.

are you seriously advocating heading off a pack of a dozen or more wild wolves with a couple of domesticated dogs? it sounds like a suicide mission to me.
Click to expand...
Yep, seriously. Historically, that's exactly what certain breeds were used for. The Pyranees is said to be capable of repelling a bear. I think that something to consider is that in the wild, few aggressive encounters between competing animals are fatal - usually someone backs down (pride isn't so important as survival), often before there is even any actual combat. So the Pyranees doesn't need to be able to kill the bear, just run him off.

That's why animals mark their territory - it doesn't do anything to physically obstruct trespassers, not a fence, just a marker to claim territory, which has the benefit that most fights are avoided in this way - they do it to avoid potentially fatal combat (if they didn't mark it, they would run into the trespassers). Behaving recklessly would be genetically bred out, because it would result too often in death prior to breeding.

Same thing with a wolf, or wolves... nobody likes the idea of dying, so if they have a choice, maybe they'll just find an easier meal somewhere else. In addition to the Great Pyranees, look also at German Shepherd, Akbash, Anatolian Shepherd... my understanding is that these dogs would not only run off wolves, but would on occasion, catch and kill them too. I am sure the wolves won at times. But if you have a few dogs that are very strong, fierce, and as big or bigger than the wolves, and they won't back down under any circumstances... getting past them is not an attractive or easy task for anyone to face.

P.S. I found a link on the net regarding livestock guarding dogs:
http://www.lgd.org/
(and notes from the USDA):
http://www.lgd.org/usdafacts.html

Note the section authored by the USDA that says:
Livestock guarding breeds originated in Europe and Asia, where they have been used for centuries to protect sheep from wolves and bears. Americans have used guarding dogs since the mid-1970's.
Click to expand...

So, I guess even the Americans have been catching on a bit of late. :D
 
Eradication, control, or leave 'em be. The argument among experts and laymen alike rages on, and it'll most likely continue for a long time. Majority thinking today is control, and I agree. But the real problem is how? I'm not refering to the mechanical means of hunting, etc.; I mean by what method do we establish a healthy balance? A number of models have been established over the years, and they, along with the outcome, vary. A few of the methods include...

Main historical trends:

A variety of paradigms have been described in the historical
development of population biology (den Boer and Reddingius, and see S.
Kingsland for alternative views):

Mechanistic view (Lotka, Volterra) - populations as differential
equations - treating them as made up of many, many individuals, each
with small effect on the aggregate - a mechanistic view that grew out
of physical models. In this view, one can still break down populations
(as Lotka did extensively for age structure) but maintain the same
assumptions about large sizes within each age group.

Regulation or engineering view (Nicholson) - population density was in
balance, e.g. adjusted to prevailing conditions, positing a
"controlling factor" or "density geoverning factor" (now thought of as
a density dependent factor) which produced a balance. There is an
inherent equilibrium, with a stabilizing feedback driving population
densities back to this equilibrium following perturbations - a
cybernetic view, in which population regulation is taken for granted.

Systems view (von Bertalanffy) - there are general principles, laws and
models that apply to systems with many components, irrespective of the
details of these components, which are applicable to the hierarchical
levels in ecology. These laws are not necessarily derivable from a
reductionist view.

Natural History view (Andrewartha and Birch) - population dynamics is
the result of a complex interplay between the properties of the
organisms themselves and the variables in the environment. A view of
populations made up of many small interaction groups, with which most
individauls interact across their lifespan. So distribution and
abundance determined by variations in localized environmental factors
which determine the organisms growth and survival in these localized
groups.

An Alternative (not in den Boer and Reddingius) Individual-Based View
- here we take the reductionist view that the properties of
populations can be derived from the complex of interactions between
individuals, environment, and other species. Thus it is not just
localized interaction groups which determine population dynamics, but
the entire complex of individual characteristics which vary through the
population. It is a view in which it is possible for rare individuals
to have significant impacts on population-level phenomena.
Click to expand...

(taken from: http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/eeb507/popecol.txt )

When we intervene in either direction, we'd better be damned sure that we have our ducks in a row, or the outcome could and most probably would be disasterous.

http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2001/11/10.htm

Any way you look at it, population dynamics is a highly complex, often argued and little understood (in spite of the reams of paper written on the subject.) area of study. Culling IS necessary, but the formula for doing so needs to be carefully thought out in advance, and not done with a "bull in a china shop" attitude.

For those interested in seeing how predator / prey relationships work in general, the link below is to a working computer model of predator and prey populations over time. Cal would understand the math invovled more than I, but the graph is pretty easy to read. Just plug in the number of critters for prey and predator, set the duration time to 30, and hit start.

http://dmpeli.math.mcmaster.ca/Matlab/CLLsoftware/Predator/index.html
 
Rich:

So apparently, the guarding dogs are smarter than I thought - the following are some excerpts from the USDA material at:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/companimals/guarddogs/guarddogs.htm

A livestock guarding dog is one that generally stays with sheep without harming them and aggressively repels predators. The dog chooses to remain with sheep because it has been reared from puppyhood with them. Its protective behaviors are largely ins tinctive, and there is relatively little formal training required other than timely correction of undesirable behaviors (e.g., chewing on ears, overplayfulness, and excessive wandering). The guarding dog is not a herding dog but rather a full-time member of the flock. Success of the dog is a result of a quality genetic background with an emphasis on proper rearing.
Click to expand...

and

If the sheep are active (moving and feeding), the dog may also be active. However, dogs are not necessarily with the sheep constantly. The dog may sleep during the day while the sheep are feeding, or the dog may be away from the sheep investigating adjac ent areas. With experience, the dog will learn when disturbances from predators are likely to occur (evening and early morning hours) and will be actively patrolling or on alert at a selected location. A dog will often bed with the sheep but is usually qu ickly aroused by any disturbance. Some sheep appear to learn to return to the dog when they are threatened by a predator.

A guarding dog uses its senses and experience to know when and where to patrol and how best to keep predators away from the sheep. Some people have mistakenly attempted to impose their own conceptions of the guarding routine on the dog. The dog should be free to develop its guarding behaviors within the restrictions dictated by each particular livestock operation.
Click to expand...

and


Managing Dogs on Rangeland and Pastures
Management practices on pasture and range operations differ and affect the overall concept of using guarding dogs. Pastures have fenced boundaries which provide a clearly defined, stationary territory for a dog to defend. There is lit tle chance that the sheep will be lost if they scatter within a pasture, so a full-time herder is usually not needed.

Fences are rarely encountered on most rangeland, and a herder tends the flock, controls the grazing pattern, and provides some degree of protection from predators. A (guard) dog on the range must learn to identify the sheep and the ever-changing area they occupy as a defendable territory. A dog must adapt to new areas as the herder implements the grazing plan, and since the dog remains unsupervised with the sheep much of the time, its behavior must not cause the flock to scatter.
Click to expand...
 
CC-
I've been trying to be gentle, but you are really killing me now.

Look, what I've seen of ranching, especially cattle, doesn't lend itself to tight herds, lazily grazing on idyllic, lush hillsides or romatic cattle drives, where a couple of trusty dogs can contain, control and protect.....that's called a farm. They split up into relatively small groups, and disperse widely. They have to...the land would be described by most of us as "barren" and LOTS of it is needed to support a cow.

Bounties weren't placed on wolves because it was fun to trap 'em or because of some unfounded fear of them carrying off children. It was done (and OVERDONE, in my opinion) because of the livestock cost. They're Pack Predators. They kill for food and sport.....continuously over their lives.

Do you think there are no dogs on ranches? Do you believe your idea is the newfound answer that nobody has thought of? C'mon guy. Ranchers have been using dogs longer than they've been using fences.

Now, if you want to discuss the difficulties of developing control formulas for wolves, be my guest. But it seems to me the individual States have done a pretty good job at same with all other manner of fish, fowl and wildlife. Every wheel you've suggested has already been invented.
Rich
 
Rich: No, I don't think guarding dogs are the whole answer. But at least according to the USDA, they have only begun to be employed in the US since the 1970s, about the time when the Feds dropped the bounties on predators. They are specific breeds that will actually do the job of guarding livestock, not just any old hound dog or family Lab.

According to the USDA at least, who I think have farmers and rancher's interests first and foremost in mind, livestock guarding dogs:

Effectiveness Against Various Predators
Most of the research and practical experience with guarding dogs has focused on the dogs’ ability to reduce predation by coyotes and domestic dogs, the two principal predators of sheep in the United States. Coyotes, about one-third the size of an adult guarding dog, usually avoid a direct encounter with a guarding dog; and as our survey revealed, 95 percent of the guarding dogs were aggressive to predators, primarily coyotes. Fewer of the guarding dogs were aggressive to domestic dogs (74 perce nt), but encounters between guarding dogs and intruding dogs usually differ from those between guarding dogs and coyotes. Whereas most coyotes avoid a confrontation, intruding dogs may spend time smelling and posturing around the guarding dog. Fights may occur, but more likely the intruding dog will leave after a brief period of investigation. The end result is usually the same as with coyotes, no predation. However, some guarding dogs, particularly immatures, may stand by while intruding dogs harass the sheep. Occasionally, guarding dogs have joined intruding dogs and injured or killed sheep.

Foxes probably respond to guarding dogs as do most coyotes, by avoiding a confrontation and thus staying a reasonable distance from the flock. Several encounters between wolves and guarding dogs have been documented, but the results are not very predicta ble at this point. Some wolves avoid or bypass the area occupied by a guarding dog, others investigate and posture as described previously for domestic dogs, and others fight with the guarding dog. Wolves are likely more frustrated by the presence of a gu arding dog than intimidated by it.

We gathered information about guarding dog–bear encounters. In a typical encounter with a black bear, the dog would bark repeatedly and approach to confront the bear. The bear would usually respond by retreating from the dog. There was usually no physical contact between the dog and the bear, and the dog would continue pursuit for several hundred meters or until the bear was headed away from the sheep. The dog typically returned to the sheep soon after the encounter. Although our sample of guarding dog– grizzly bear encounters is small, it suggests that grizzly bears are less readily deterred by guarding dogs than are black bears.
Click to expand...

They summarize by writing:
Dogs may be viewed as a first line of defense against predators in many operations. Their effectiveness can be enhanced by good livestock management and by eliminating persistent depredating predators with suitable removal techniques.
Click to expand...

Now, that sounds reasonable to me. They keep things on a factual basis. It is quite different from some (not you) who have described wolves as evil, and said that only whackos would allow them to live.
 
OK, then.
.gov mandated repop of the wolf packs....I've no problem. But .gov should then provide the ranchers, free of charge, the guard dogs to protect their private property and livelihood from the threat .gov has mandated.

Additionally, .gov should then provide for shoot-on-sight laws on all livestock and private property....I don't own a ranch, but perhaps my little Catahoula Leopard Cur is not up to the task of taking on half dozen 100 lb+ Wolves. But he has MORE moral right to survival and protection on my lands than the Wolves. The government should endorse this Policy because it would only be called into play when ***their*** guard dog solution ***fails***. Easy to win me over on that.

CC-
Coyotes are NOT Wolves. Completely different species, guy. They're Rabbit eaters, not Elk and Cow eaters. Would you imagine that, just maybe, they're a bit more easily run off?

Do you hunt? Really?
Rich
 
rich, cc is just as entertaining over on the bear thread. i have hunted bears for many years, killed over 30. cc claims they are not agressive. Somebody should tell those black bears. in my experience a bb is more agressive then a brown. they are more crafty also. i shot one with my .45-70 and tore it's arm almost off. it barely stumbled and ran me up a tree. (the dogs ran interference) it tried to climb after me and i shot it downward through the shoulder and it excited out the hip. still took a few minutes before it would lay still and i shot it in the head with my .38
cc i don't think you have much outdoors experience aside from what your hunting software provides.
 
Sorry Cal, but I have to side with Rich on this one. Think about it: One dog of ANY breed against a PACK of wolves is no contest. Wolves are smart and have a great hunting strategy... teamwork. They'll run a moose in a circle, where the next wolf takes over... another circle, until said moose is tuckered out, and it's easy pickin's. A bull moose (or elk) is a damned site tougher than any one dog. I'm a staunch conservationist, but I'm also familiar with open range ranching. Sheep tend to stay in a tight bunch, where cattle usually spread out some. They'll stay in a herd, but it's a loose association, and a herd of 100 Hereford may spread out over a hundred acres, which is far more than one dog can patrol. Dogs used to protect sheep flocks are raised with sheep, but cattle won't tolerate a dog like that, so the protection instinct is much reduced. Even if there was more than one dog, and the protection instinct was there, a wolf pack is smart enough to create a diversion to distract the dogs, while a couple will slip in from the rear and take what they want. Ranchers and farmers today operate on a razor's edge between a successful operation and bankruptcy. I fear the smaller operations are doomed to extinction because of large "factory farms" and ranches. The family farm and ranch is the backbone of America, and losses to anything can make the difference between failure and success. I really want to see the wolves thrive, but not at the expense of generations of family ranchers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top