What would you do about the wolves?

cc i don't think you have much outdoors experience aside from what your hunting software provides.

Well Jeff - just because I am not shooting critters doesn't mean I don't know them. I have seen bear in Maine, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, British Columbia, Alberta, the Yukon, and Alaska. Black bears and brown bears, little ones and big ones. I was charged by a black bear (after some pungent smelling food we had), and I managed to send him on his way with my voice. I led the trips that I was on, and I do have one rescue to my credit. You can disparage me all you like, but I know what I've done, and your snide remarks can't change any of that. Some people think animals are to be feared - I don't. It might make you feel better to say that I've probably never seen any then, but that's not the difference, I can assure you.
 
Capt: If that's so, how do you explain what's in the USDA report on guarding dogs for ranchers? They seem to indicate they work quite well, and the USDA is definitely on the side of farmers and ranchers - they are their sheep.
 
I honestly don't know, Cal. I'm going on almost 25 yrs. experience on a 4200 acre ranch that has both cattle and sheep. I'm also going on 5 yrs. experience of patroling NPS, Forest Service, and BLM land, and my studies of wolf predation, but I confess I have no hand's-on experience with wolves facing livestock.
 
Capt: Well, I have definitely heard of wolves killing and eating family pets, but a Great Pyranees is no Schnauzer. They are bigger than the wolves and are bred to be absolutely fearless. If you get two or three, they become more imposing.

I've observed animals in conflict directly both personally, and on nature films, and the one who would win if it came down to a life or death fight, doesn't always win in a standoff. The reason is that most animals don't want to risk death if it's avoidable, so they don't get into that life and death fight... there's some posturing, bluffing, false attacks, and usually one side just backs down.

That's what the USDA report seems to indicate as well, at least when I read it, they are not describing fights to the death as the norm, whether the dogs are the stronger, or the weaker of the two adversaries - the dogs press, and usually it ends with no fight at all.
 
CarbineCaleb, we are talking about a group of several 100+ pound predators that can take down an 800 hundred pound moose using a deliberate and coordinated attack.

a Pyrenees isn't going to stand much of a chance, especially when viewed as competition.
 
redhawk: I'll pose the same question to you that I did to Captain Charlie then - why does the USDA write this in their report then? And why do they write that the guarding dogs normally run off black bear, who surely average at least twice their size, and can be four times their size? Why do wolves normally avoid humans, who after all, physically at least, are less capable than the Pyrenees? For that matter, why was I able to stop a charging black bear, using only my voice? I don't think you can just boil this down to who is stronger, because thought guides the animal, not just muscle - and that thought can make him avoid risk.
 
CarbineCaleb said:
why does the USDA write this in their report then?
Ummmmm, maybe because they're part of the exact same organization that reintroduced the "endangered" Wolf to states in the US, explaining that they would not be a threat to livestock, while setting up funds for livestock losses? Perhaps because they're part of the same .gov who still insists that only the alpha males breed?

Did you not read Capt Charlie's post? Great Pyrenees. Wonderful "what if". Put it into practice. Who will PAY for all those Great Pyrenees for the ranchers? Who will pay for their feed and medical?

This is silly, CC.
We've presented that the Wolf CAN exist in North America, assuming we allow sensible control as with all other game and predators. We've demonstrated the result of the current US policy in Alberta. Yet, every response you offer supports that exact same "can't we all just get along" philosophy. "Don't bother the Wolves and they won't bother you". Doncha get it, guy? Wolves, unchecked by predation do not just "get along". They cause very real damage to hard working families just like yours. And flock dogs will not control their numbers; they'll only push them onto the next herd of another hard working family.

You wanna photograph Wolves? You should absolutely have that opportunity. But not at the expense of "endangering" the Elk herds...and certainly not on Capt Charlie's ranch or in my back yard. I don't personally want a Great Pyrennes....I simply want to enjoy my paid for lands in peace.

Let landowners protect their lands and there will still be plenty of Wolves for you to photograph, if you've a mind.
Rich
 
"Americans have used guarding dogs since the mid-1970's."

Gosh, I'm glad there's no chauvinism within the USDA!

Folks along the Tex-Mex border have been using guarding dogs with their goat herds as long as they've had goat herds. I'm pretty sure those folks are Americans.

:D:D:D

It's not all that common, but a coyote family group with nearly-growns will take out a guard dog and enjoy fresh cabrito. A coyote pack is adept at working together. That's why a lot of the goat herds are accompanied by two guarding dogs. Losses are reduced, though; not avoided. Goats, however, aren't as valuable as cows or horses.

Anytime a Pyrenees drives off a pack of wolves, I'd lay odds that pack wasn't hungry. If they were hungry, the pack would split: Some would have a conversation with the guard dog while the others prepared supper.

Dot-gov is good at avoiding responsibility, and in this instance gets away with it because of public emotions wherein the rancher is somehow unimportant, if not portrayed as some sort of bad guy. I've heard these comments while at a steakhouse restaurant...Still, by the standards by which I've lived my own life, the introduction of a predator into livestock country places the onus on those so doing.

Art
 
Losses are reduced, though; not avoided
Well, that's essentially what the USDA report says. I don't know if anyone read it. It doesn't say guard dogs are a panacea. It points out a list of potential benefits obtained when using them, and also a list of potential problems obtained when using them (which, if you want to take the worst possible one - a poorly suited "guard dog" can attack the sheep). All it really says is, these things are useful. I am being accused of bias here, but there has only been denial that guard dogs might be profitably employed. Now, given that this is a centuries old working practice, that defies common sense to me.

Don't bother the Wolves and they won't bother you
Actually, I acknowledged right from the start that there would be some predation on livestock.
Caleb:
If wolves are reintroduced, I am sure there will be some level of predation on deer as well as livestock.

And I also said a ways back that if they are doing that, they should be shot.
Caleb:
Well, if the wolf is actually causing losses, I'd agree.

I really have 3 points that I believe:
  1. Many people are unduely afraid of predators
  2. Predators and man can coexist
  3. If predators are to survive, it will take some compromise on the part of man

I don't consider these very radical ideas, but they are definitely at odds with some of the statements made here. Thanks for at least engaging in some dialogue, anyway. :D
 
CarbineCaleb, i apologize but the folks that deal face-to-face on a daily basis with the wolves get real sick and tired of folks like you that live a long ways away from wolves telling them how to live their lives and run their businesses. I implore you to head out west and spend some time with a few ranchers and guides and see first hand what these wolves are capable of. talk to the people that are affected directly by wolf reintroduction and maybe you will understand. maybe not, because in the end you will get to leave and return to your city where you will remain unaffected by that which you imagine as so harmless.

Many people are unduely afraid of predators
head out to Wyoming and spend some time in the Bridger wilderness where you might actually get a chance to interact with a pack of wolves or a grizzly or two. and don't take any weapons since fear of predators is undue. report back to us.
Predators and man can coexist
when they live far far away from each other. that is why the predators live in the sparesly populated areas, like Wyoming and Northern Canada. not to many predators in Boston, i imagine.
If predators are to survive, it will take some compromise on the part of man
that compromise has already been established. predators and man do not mix. where there is man, there are no predators. where there is no man, there are predators. now folks like you who live very far away from predators think that those who live very close to the predators should just learn to deal with it. wolves are a cute and cuddly part of the ecosystem when they are not in your back yard killing your livestock and destroying your hunting grounds. it is also IMO quite arrogant to think that man alone can determine the fate of life on this planet.
why was I able to stop a charging black bear, using only my voice?
comparing a single maybe 200 pound black bear to half a dozen 120 pound wolves is not a valid comparison. try that same tactic with a pack of territorial domestic dogs and you will be in a world of hurt. now imagine what six or more wild and hungry wolves will do to you.
 
I really have 3 points that I believe:
1. Many people are unduely afraid of predators
2. Predators and man can coexist
3. If predators are to survive, it will take some compromise on the part of man
For the most part, you're preaching to the choir, Cal. Most hunters and ranchers will agree with the first two. It's the 3rd that gives room for controversy.

Define some compromise

An operation like King Ranch in TX can absorb some loss, but the smaller family operations? Chickens and even sheep go really cheap at auction, but cattle? The loss of one cow and calf may not break a ranch, but it will definitely put a dent in the wallet. The loss of 5 or 6 over a year will mean a lean year for that family.

I REALLY like being able to go to Yellowstone or Isle Royale and listen to the wolves, and watch them interact, and I want that to continue. I want future generations to be able to experience it also. Wolves had a place on this planet long before we came along, and should continue to do so. But we do too. It will all boil down to a very sad choice eventually. Planet Earth is finite. Populations aren't. Who will have to go? Realistically, we all know the answer to that question. If we go whole hog to re-establish wolf populations, we'll alienate the very people who's support we need to keep the wolf. If we control them and keep losses to a minimum, public sentiment might just lean towards keeping them around a little bit longer.
 
Redhawk:
head out to Wyoming and spend some time in the Bridger wilderness where you might actually get a chance to interact with a pack of wolves or a grizzly or two. and don't take any weapons since fear of predators is undue. report back to us.

I haven't been to Wyoming. Back when I was in condition to do these things, Wyoming wasn't a challenge - I always sought out the ruggedest country. On trips out west, that was the Canadian Rockies, the North Cascades, and the Alaska Range. I have seen grizzlies in Alaska and the Yukon, with cubs, and I was without weapons. I already said that. Anyone in fact who travels to the Alaska backcountry in prime country will see grizzlies, and anyone who does it in Denali is forbidden to bring a firearm. On the AK trip (3 weeks in the backcountry on foot - Glacier Bay, Denali, and Wrangell St-Elias), one night, I went to bed early, but two of my companions said they saw an entire pack of wolves run through the little hanging valley we were camped in - I missed it, but they didn't eat us. I've been within 40 feet of moose, black bear (up to 500lb) and those with cubs. In Alberta, I've watched a momma bear with her cub, easily flip over a flattened boulder to look underneath - a boulder that I'd wager weighed 300-500lb... I was watching that from less than 50 feet away.

On my travels in Canada, I can tell you that the attitudes towards predators and animals in general are quite different (on average, of course both countries have much variety in opinion). Up there, people are much more familiar with animals, more comfortable with them, and more savvy about how to interact with them... and yes, they laugh at Americans in this regard.

Redhawk:
talk to the people that are affected directly by wolf reintroduction and maybe you will understand.
In Canada, I spoke with a family that had lost a poodle, and had nearly lost a Lab (they woke up to the sound of something outside, looked out the window in the moonlight, and their dog was running in circles around the house, with a wolf at his heels... they opened the front door and their dog shot in, exhausted, and quickly shut it - he probably only had a minute or two left to live when they opened that door). Canada has a lot more wolves than the US... 100x as many. I also camped there, alone in the Canadian Rockies - in the backcountry, no drive in campgrounds, prime grizzly and wolf country, for 3 weeks, with no weapon, and no tent. Was in the backcountry of Banff, Yoho, Jasper, Mt Robson parks.

Redhawk - you just can't accept that someone who understands animals thinks differently than you. Yes, I know that predators have great strength. Yes, I know that on rare occasions, they will without provocation attack and kill people - that's not news to me though. I knew that back in high school. I also know that even deer have killed people when they feel threatened - not news to me either. I am not "naive" in this regard. But I understand the animals enough to be comfortable in their presence, and I understand the risks, neither minimizing, nor exaggerating them.

I just have a different mindset - I identify quite closely with a wildlife biologist or a naturalist. For instance when Jeff Troop "proved" how aggressive black bears were by telling his story of an attack after he shot it... I think, "Hmmm, so all you did was start in to killing this critter, and he attacked you? How aggressive he is! :rolleyes: ". In his mind, that's an aggressive animal - it attacks you when you shoot it. In my mind, trying to kill something is provocation in the extreme.
 
Capt: As to the meaning of the word "compromise" - I'd agree, that's where the majority of the issue is. For people who say that reintroducing wolves is crazy, I'd say that they by definition do not believe that humans and predators can coexist.

As to terms of the compromise, I don't have a single magic answer. Some useful ingredients that currently are partially, but not consistently or wholeheartedly applied might be:
  • Don't allow wolves to be shot on sight, merely for existing
  • Do compensate farmers and ranchers for any losses
  • Encourage the use of guarding dogs to reduce losses, through education and incentives
  • Try to improve the wolf habitat on public lands, to encourage the wolves to principally remain there, reducing friction with private landowners (yes that's been sucessfully done with other animals)
 
cc you play the victim of snide remarks on one thread and then come over here and make snide remarks. :confused: you are doing nothing more then trolling. period. you seem to take delight in playing the devils advocate on numerous threads. can't believe others haven't called you on it.
 
I identify quite closely with a wildlife biologist or a naturalist
And that is the nub of the disagreement. You're a naturalist. Most of us are conservationists. Never the twain shall meet.

PETA is a naturalist organization.
Ducks Unlimited is a conservation organization.
For the sake of hunters and wild animals, I like DU's approach far better.
Rich
 
From "Wordsmyth":
Naturalist: a person who has expertise in or is devoted to the study of the natural sciences, esp. botany and zoology.

I don't think that definition fits PETA. Anyway, I will sign out of this thread, I do like to present my opinion, but I've done that, thanks for listening. I need to get to the range before they close. :)
 
CarbineCaleb, where was the last place that you lived where your livelyhood and private property were directly affected by wolves?

i have friends and family directly associated with ranching communities whos livelyhood and private property are first-hand affected by wolves.

these people are not the ones advocating wolf reintroduction.

they should have the final decision concerning something that directly affects their livelyhood and private property, not someone who lives 2000 miles away and visits on occasion (or never at all).
 
I haven't been to Wyoming. Back when I was in condition to do these things, Wyoming wasn't a challenge
this seems to be the gist of your entire argument:

supposition about that which you have no first or even second hand knowledge.

how can you say Wyoming isn't a 'challenge' if you have never been there?
 
how can you say Wyoming isn't a 'challenge' if you have never been there?

Because I've studied topographical maps of all the mountainous regions in North America. That's how I chose destinations, and planned routes. If you really know how to read those, you know not only how difficult it will be, but what it will look like - it's a 3-D picture of the landscape that shows not only the landscape contours, but all water - want to find a waterfall to play in? Water always travels perpendicular to contours - just find a river or creek that travels through a stretch that's brown with contour density - there it is. Want to find a massive cliff with a lot of air under your feet? Just find the trail that passes close to the upper edge of at least 500 feet of closely spaced contours. I know the difficulty, and even the shape of the scenary, before I get there. Maybe you can't do that, but I can.

One time in upstate NH (the White Mountains, best east of the Mississippi), I spoke to a farmer while we were setting up to head in - he lived across the street from the "Presidential Range". I said "Boy you are lucky living up here, right next to this!". And he answered, "I've lived here all my life (he was maybe 55), and I've never been up there". Now, who do you think knows "his" mountains better? The guy who lives in another state, but has crisscrossed them time and again on foot, or the guy who lives next door, but has never even set foot in them?

Whether they are city folk or country folk, the average person doesn't have the physical strength/endurance, nor the desire to endure the smallest physical hardship. So, 99% of the people don't get into the backcountry, no matter where they're from.
 
Back
Top