To use Coyotes as an example isn't very good comparison. Yes both are of the canine family but two totally different animals when you compare them. Coyotes are not as social as the wolf and more adapable to their enviroment than the wolf as well. Coyotes seem to be able to live just about anywhere and even though they are hunted without limits in most areas, they still seem to expand their territory.
Wolves are causing big problems in Idaho.
- Thread starter Big Bill
- Start date
- Status
To use Coyotes as an example isn't very good comparison. Yes both are of the canine family but two totally different animals when you compare them. Coyotes are not as social as the wolf and more adapable to their enviroment than the wolf as well. Coyotes seem to be able to live just about anywhere and even though they are hunted without limits in most areas, they still seem to expand their territory.
Well, I guess you're right. Never heard of Mountain Lion attacks when I was growing up in Western Nv. I'm talking about nationwide attacks. Lions have since been attacking (and sometimes eating) people from the U.S. to Canada.
Never were much in the way of bears, either, in Western Nv. Now their populations are high.
In recent years, Mt. Lions and bears have been found in the middle of Reno and have been common throughout the entire area from Reno to Carson City.
A bear tried to enter a friends home near Washoe Valley (between Reno and Carson City). He heard a noise and when he investigated, a large black bear was standing up trying to push in the window. When he called, the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife told him they get so many "bear" calls these days, they don't answer them any more.
Bears are common around his house (they eat the apples out of the trees), but they don't usually invite themselves in!
Last edited:
IDAHO83501
New member
kill all the canadian wolves in Idaho
Although we will never completly get rid of the wolves in Idaho ( unless they let us poison them like our grandfathers did). They are too smart and sneaky to ever hunt to minimal numbers. The wolves have been taking a terrible toll on elk and deer in the Clearwater Region of North Central Idaho... Some cattle, and other livestock have been killed by wolves, but our wildlife has really paid the price for this liberal idea...The road to hell is paved with " good liberal intensions". The VERY FEW who thought re-introducing a foriegn species into the eco-systems of Idaho, Montana,and Wyoming was a good idea are not around to deal with the problems that they cause. They watch some bull**** T.V. show with some wolf pups running around and must think " What a wonderful thing". As a lifetime resident of Idaho who enjoys the outdoors I cant tell them there is NOTHING wonderful about it. People who live in wolf country (now) are seeing Elk numbers drop at a terrible rate, fewer deer, and sometimes their pet dissappear. We find animals just bacically killed, some of their asses eaten a little, sometimes some of their guts eaten, and the rest left to rot. It may not be warm and fuzzy to say, but, somtimes wolves kill just to kill, not to eat. We need to to kill them all,,,,they are a land shark that kills for the sake of killing, sometimes to eat, somtimes not. Our grandfathers got rid of most of them, now, we will be lucky to eliminate half of them.....Our wildlife will never be the same,,,,,and that is sad...........
Although we will never completly get rid of the wolves in Idaho ( unless they let us poison them like our grandfathers did). They are too smart and sneaky to ever hunt to minimal numbers. The wolves have been taking a terrible toll on elk and deer in the Clearwater Region of North Central Idaho... Some cattle, and other livestock have been killed by wolves, but our wildlife has really paid the price for this liberal idea...The road to hell is paved with " good liberal intensions". The VERY FEW who thought re-introducing a foriegn species into the eco-systems of Idaho, Montana,and Wyoming was a good idea are not around to deal with the problems that they cause. They watch some bull**** T.V. show with some wolf pups running around and must think " What a wonderful thing". As a lifetime resident of Idaho who enjoys the outdoors I cant tell them there is NOTHING wonderful about it. People who live in wolf country (now) are seeing Elk numbers drop at a terrible rate, fewer deer, and sometimes their pet dissappear. We find animals just bacically killed, some of their asses eaten a little, sometimes some of their guts eaten, and the rest left to rot. It may not be warm and fuzzy to say, but, somtimes wolves kill just to kill, not to eat. We need to to kill them all,,,,they are a land shark that kills for the sake of killing, sometimes to eat, somtimes not. Our grandfathers got rid of most of them, now, we will be lucky to eliminate half of them.....Our wildlife will never be the same,,,,,and that is sad...........
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I asked before and got no response, so I will ask again. Is there now a shortage of elk and deer outside of normal peak and low point herd populations? I am pretty sure there isn't. We know the wolves are not having a negative effect on livestock. So what is the basis for these claims of wolves taking such a terrible toll on the elk and deer herds?
I disagree, although I don't have any numbers on livestock killed by wolves. Any livestock lost to wolves, coyotes, weather or disease has a negative effect to the owner of the livestock. Any loss is still a loss on the books and one less productive animal to help the ranchers pay their bills with. Some loss is unavoidable, however the ranchers always strive to have zero loss of all their animals during any given year. To say a lost animal has no negative effect is a little presumptuous.
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3411043/m/4301080401
Take a look at the pictures here and tell me there was no negative effect on livestock?
Last edited:
Playboypenguin
Moderator
No, if the wolves are not taking any livestock that would have not been lost to disease or age anyway they are NOT having any negatiove effect. That is the reality of the situation.
It puzzles me that gun rights supporters that so often balk at anti-gun people saying things that are not supported by facts turn around and do the exact same thing.
Obviously you have no experience raising livestock or the effort a Farmer or Rancher puts into keeping their animals alive. Wolves don't always single out the week and sickly animal to kill, if you believe that then you are pretty ignorant in the ways of predators.
Besides when an animal becomes non-productive because of age it is usually because the animal will not breed regardless of male or female it is sold so it still has monetary value to the owner. We don't keep animals until they die on our property we would rather salvage what we can. Far better to get a little value out of them that leave them for wolf fodder.
We vaccinate for disease sure some will get sick. Hopefully we catch them in time and we are able to save them. Sometimes we don't but that can't be avoided as well.
I guarantee you regardless of the healthy, sick or old if a cow, sheep, or other herd animal gets separated from the rest it will be taken by wolves or other large predator that has decide to make it lunch. Besides where are your facts?
Besides when an animal becomes non-productive because of age it is usually because the animal will not breed regardless of male or female it is sold so it still has monetary value to the owner. We don't keep animals until they die on our property we would rather salvage what we can. Far better to get a little value out of them that leave them for wolf fodder.
We vaccinate for disease sure some will get sick. Hopefully we catch them in time and we are able to save them. Sometimes we don't but that can't be avoided as well.
I guarantee you regardless of the healthy, sick or old if a cow, sheep, or other herd animal gets separated from the rest it will be taken by wolves or other large predator that has decide to make it lunch. Besides where are your facts?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
No offense, you seem to not have much experience with math...or you are just refusing to recognize the facts. The numbers do not support any losses being suffered by ranchers since wolves were introduced. There are tons of studies and tons of government reports on the subject. if even one official scientific report supported the anti-wolf claims you would never hear the end of it from the hunter's rights groups.
I have no hard numbers that is for sure on livestock killed by wolves in Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho. However to state that there is no significant loss to wolves because of Government studies is plain BS. What the Government finds significant and what the owner of the livestock finds as significant is two different things. I'm just telling you with a family that has been farming and ranching in Colorado since the 1920's that any loss to predators is not an acceptable loss. So go ahead and stick with your Government studies and believe them to be gospel if you want. However I'll stick with what I know from experience that I've gained by living a lifestyle you obviously don't understand. Wolves will kill livestock plain and simple just as they will kill any animal they deem worthy of being their next meal.
I totally agree with you however, that wolves haven't driven up the price of beef, the price of fuel had more to do with that than anything else during the last couple of years. In the long run wolves will have very little effect on the price of beef, because what the farmer/rancher gets per pound of beef is a very small percentage compared to what the packer gets per pound. If you feel you are getting ripped off at the meat counter blame the packers not the wolves.
I totally agree with you however, that wolves haven't driven up the price of beef, the price of fuel had more to do with that than anything else during the last couple of years. In the long run wolves will have very little effect on the price of beef, because what the farmer/rancher gets per pound of beef is a very small percentage compared to what the packer gets per pound. If you feel you are getting ripped off at the meat counter blame the packers not the wolves.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
No, it is not. To say otherwise despite multiple independent and government studies is BS. Especially with no bases for the statement. In fact that type of action is downright ridiculous and shows nothing but a severe bias and willingness to disregard reality in favor of prejudice...just like anti-gunnies.
This topic has been covered on this forum multiple times and not once has anyone been able to provide any credible evidence to support the anti-wolf movement.
I lived in southeatern Idaho before I moved to Utah, around Bear Lake. There are many more wolves in that area than the state census states. Numbers don't tell the whole story. I happen to be good friends with the state trapper for the area. He personally has killed over a dozen wolves strictly for stock predation, in one instance three wolves were trying to take down a yearling belgian draft horse, this was in July, they were not starving, none were sick or mangy, they will take an easy meal no matter what it is. I think they are beautiful animals, but the "reintrodution" proponents for the most part don't live where they get released. They take a severe toll on the deer and elk in an area, not just from killing directly, but from harrassing them in the winter when they are already in poor condition. Some of the biggest pushers for reintroduction were from the Washington D.C. area, so why were they released here? Because they didn't want then in their backyard either. There is a pretty popular rule on wolves the three S's, Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. They have their place, the lower 48 is not it.
PP - you are the one who is lacking in supporting evidence of your views. All of us on the right side of this so called debate have provided evidence which you have arrogantly dismissed as trivial or hearsay. While you fail to back your statements with evidence. So, until you can back up your statements with evidence, I suggest you quit polluting my thread with your useless posts. Here's just one example of many that you posted.
Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves
http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9879957
Associated Press - February 20, 2009 3:34 PM ET
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The Idaho Department of Fish and Game says the state could be losing up to $24 million annually in hunting revenue due to wolves killing deer and elk.
The agency says the study is an update of a 1994 environmental impact statement related to the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park.
The recent study says the estimated 800 wolves in Idaho kill about 9,500 elk a year.
The study estimates an elk killed by a hunter has an economic value of $8,000.
The study also considers elk killed by wolves as illegal kills and sets the value of each dead elk at $750.
The study also factors in how much the state is losing because people choose not to spend money on hunting due to lack of game.
Republican Sen. Gary Schroeder of Moscow requested the study.
Information from: Lewiston Tribune, http://www.lmtribune.com
The Idaho Fish and Game is the source for these claims. If you don't understand that, then you should do some research on your own.
Report estimates revenue loss from Idaho wolves
http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9879957
Associated Press - February 20, 2009 3:34 PM ET
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The Idaho Department of Fish and Game says the state could be losing up to $24 million annually in hunting revenue due to wolves killing deer and elk.
The agency says the study is an update of a 1994 environmental impact statement related to the introduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park.
The recent study says the estimated 800 wolves in Idaho kill about 9,500 elk a year.
The study estimates an elk killed by a hunter has an economic value of $8,000.
The study also considers elk killed by wolves as illegal kills and sets the value of each dead elk at $750.
The study also factors in how much the state is losing because people choose not to spend money on hunting due to lack of game.
Republican Sen. Gary Schroeder of Moscow requested the study.
Information from: Lewiston Tribune, http://www.lmtribune.com
Last edited:
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Evidence? Anecdotes from biased websites is evidence? By what weak standard does that qualify as evidence?
If you have any actual data I would love to see it.
Minnesota Having Problems With Wolves
Published March 05 2009
Wolves becoming commonplace around state
Placing wolves back under the federal Endangered Species Act could mean that sightings, now fairly commonplace around Minnesota, could become a matter of close encounters.
By: Sarah Smith, Park Rapids Enterprise
PARK RAPIDS – Placing wolves back under the federal Endangered Species Act could mean that sightings, now fairly commonplace around Minnesota, could become a matter of close encounters.
“From the surveys I’ve done we have a wolf pack in almost every township that has enough habitat to contain them,” said Park Rapids DNR wildlife technician Tom Stursa.
“They’re so commonplace many people don’t even report them.”
And that commonplace status is making livestock owners mad as the dickens. Farm groups have protested a court ruling last fall that reinstated federal protection for wolves, saying it will result in more wolves preying on sheep and cattle, especially in northern Minnesota.
But wildlife and ecosystem activists say wolves are absent from 95 percent of their historic range and are truly endangered. On Jan. 21, President Barack Obama halted an Interior Department proposal to once again de-list wolves until that agency formulates a comprehensive recovery plan, not the piecemeal de-listing that has occurred in the past.
The last tracking survey counted nearly 3,000 gray or timber wolves throughout Minnesota, mostly concentrated in the northeastern sector. That was about twice the density wildlife officials had determined was optimal for Minnesota. The population is holding its own, with stable numbers over the past decade.
Wolves have been somewhat of a political football for at least that long, punted from federal protection, to state management and back to the feds last fall under a court order.
In September 2008, the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia reversed the Interior Department’s plan to remove gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region from federal protection. The result is that they’re once again considered an endangered species.
Because Hubbard County and the surrounding regions have a healthy deer population, packs of wolves come here for the cuisine.
“About 75 percent of their diet is deer,” Stursa said. “They do get into trouble once in awhile and decide to dine on some domestic livestock but most of the time it’s deer.”
One important upshot of the court ruling is that frustrated farmers and ranchers can no longer shoot wolves that threaten their livestock. Wolves may, however, be killed in defense of human lives.
Only federal agents are allowed to cull a wolf pack in cases of verified livestock depredation. From 1996 to 2008, federal agents killed 931 wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain region and 1,951 wolves in the Great Lakes region, all in defense of livestock.
Nimrod cattle farmer Chuck Becker raised a ruckus shortly after the court decision was handed down. He complained to every available media outlet that wolves were scaring his cattle, causing them to run panic-stricken through fences and become crippled. He maintained some of his cattle were eaten alive by hungry wolf packs.
When the state managed the wolf population, Becker and about 80 other farmers were compensated for livestock losses at the hands – or paws – of wolves. Now the state management plan remains on hold while federal authorities have the ball in their red zone.
DNR wolf expert Dan Stark acknowledges some frustrated livestock producers may be thinning wolf packs illegally.
Sebeka farmer Tim Nolte told Minnesota Public Radio three of his dairy and beef cattle disappeared into thin air. He blamed wolves.
Interestingly, the wolf ruling had nothing to do with managing populations – or overpopulations.
It had to do with how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service applied its statutory authority, both designating distinct populations of animals and de-listing them at the same time. The Humane Society and other animal rights groups sued, contending USFWS had no authority to simultaneously do both.
Two previous attempts to de-list wolves in the Rocky Mountain area were struck down by federal courts.
The Obama decision ends what his administration termed the “premature removal” of wolves from the endangered species list in 14 states, including Minnesota.
The DNR’s official position on wolf management is currently: “The Minnesota DNR is committed to ensuring the long-term survival of the wolf in Minnesota, and also to resolving conflicts between wolves and humans.”
Minnesota has a total of 96 endangered, 101 threatened and 242 special concern species, according to the DNR.
Stursa meanwhile said there are ways to keep wolves at bay.
“We’ve been telling people for years, ‘If you’re going to feed deer you’re going to encourage predators; not only wolves but coyotes and stray dogs,’” he said. “So if you’re putting out feed for deer it’s actually a collection point for lots of animals.”
The federal debate will wage on as to how best to manage the wolf population. For the foreseeable future, the only beneficiaries will be the lawyers.
http://www.dl-online.com/event/article/id/42223/group/home/
Published March 05 2009
Wolves becoming commonplace around state
Placing wolves back under the federal Endangered Species Act could mean that sightings, now fairly commonplace around Minnesota, could become a matter of close encounters.
By: Sarah Smith, Park Rapids Enterprise
PARK RAPIDS – Placing wolves back under the federal Endangered Species Act could mean that sightings, now fairly commonplace around Minnesota, could become a matter of close encounters.
“From the surveys I’ve done we have a wolf pack in almost every township that has enough habitat to contain them,” said Park Rapids DNR wildlife technician Tom Stursa.
“They’re so commonplace many people don’t even report them.”
And that commonplace status is making livestock owners mad as the dickens. Farm groups have protested a court ruling last fall that reinstated federal protection for wolves, saying it will result in more wolves preying on sheep and cattle, especially in northern Minnesota.
But wildlife and ecosystem activists say wolves are absent from 95 percent of their historic range and are truly endangered. On Jan. 21, President Barack Obama halted an Interior Department proposal to once again de-list wolves until that agency formulates a comprehensive recovery plan, not the piecemeal de-listing that has occurred in the past.
The last tracking survey counted nearly 3,000 gray or timber wolves throughout Minnesota, mostly concentrated in the northeastern sector. That was about twice the density wildlife officials had determined was optimal for Minnesota. The population is holding its own, with stable numbers over the past decade.
Wolves have been somewhat of a political football for at least that long, punted from federal protection, to state management and back to the feds last fall under a court order.
In September 2008, the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia reversed the Interior Department’s plan to remove gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region from federal protection. The result is that they’re once again considered an endangered species.
Because Hubbard County and the surrounding regions have a healthy deer population, packs of wolves come here for the cuisine.
“About 75 percent of their diet is deer,” Stursa said. “They do get into trouble once in awhile and decide to dine on some domestic livestock but most of the time it’s deer.”
One important upshot of the court ruling is that frustrated farmers and ranchers can no longer shoot wolves that threaten their livestock. Wolves may, however, be killed in defense of human lives.
Only federal agents are allowed to cull a wolf pack in cases of verified livestock depredation. From 1996 to 2008, federal agents killed 931 wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain region and 1,951 wolves in the Great Lakes region, all in defense of livestock.
Nimrod cattle farmer Chuck Becker raised a ruckus shortly after the court decision was handed down. He complained to every available media outlet that wolves were scaring his cattle, causing them to run panic-stricken through fences and become crippled. He maintained some of his cattle were eaten alive by hungry wolf packs.
When the state managed the wolf population, Becker and about 80 other farmers were compensated for livestock losses at the hands – or paws – of wolves. Now the state management plan remains on hold while federal authorities have the ball in their red zone.
DNR wolf expert Dan Stark acknowledges some frustrated livestock producers may be thinning wolf packs illegally.
Sebeka farmer Tim Nolte told Minnesota Public Radio three of his dairy and beef cattle disappeared into thin air. He blamed wolves.
Interestingly, the wolf ruling had nothing to do with managing populations – or overpopulations.
It had to do with how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service applied its statutory authority, both designating distinct populations of animals and de-listing them at the same time. The Humane Society and other animal rights groups sued, contending USFWS had no authority to simultaneously do both.
Two previous attempts to de-list wolves in the Rocky Mountain area were struck down by federal courts.
The Obama decision ends what his administration termed the “premature removal” of wolves from the endangered species list in 14 states, including Minnesota.
The DNR’s official position on wolf management is currently: “The Minnesota DNR is committed to ensuring the long-term survival of the wolf in Minnesota, and also to resolving conflicts between wolves and humans.”
Minnesota has a total of 96 endangered, 101 threatened and 242 special concern species, according to the DNR.
Stursa meanwhile said there are ways to keep wolves at bay.
“We’ve been telling people for years, ‘If you’re going to feed deer you’re going to encourage predators; not only wolves but coyotes and stray dogs,’” he said. “So if you’re putting out feed for deer it’s actually a collection point for lots of animals.”
The federal debate will wage on as to how best to manage the wolf population. For the foreseeable future, the only beneficiaries will be the lawyers.
http://www.dl-online.com/event/article/id/42223/group/home/
So, unless the Sierra Club says it, you won't believe it. FIGURES!!! :barf:
Gray wolf no longer considered endangered
They were first listed as an endangered species in 1974.
BY Conor Shine
PUBLISHED: 03/10/2009
The gray wolf will no longer be considered a threatened or endangered species in Minnesota and other states in the western Great Lakes and Rocky Mountain areas, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said Friday.
Gray wolves were first listed as an endangered species in 1974 when populations had all but disappeared from the continental United States.
According to a press release from the Department of the Interior, the gray wolf population in the United is currently at about 5,500.
Even though wolves have been considered recovered for 10 years now, University of Minnesota Fisheries and Wildlife Professor David Mech said bureaucratic processes and lawsuits have led to the gray wolf being removed and put back on the threatened and endangered species list multiple times.
“It’s a big deal in the sense that it finally happened,” Mech said. “But it happened before and it could be that with more court cases it could be back on that list.”
Mech said the removal of wolves from the list will not have a significant impact on wolf populations; instead it will transfer oversight responsibilities from federal agencies to state agencies.
“About the only real change is that in some parts of the state… a farmer seeing a wolf in the act of killing its livestock or chasing it or something can kill it,” Mech said, “where under the federal rules you cannot.”
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/10/gray-wolf-no-longer-considered-endangered
(We'll probably be hunting them in Idaho this fall. I can't wait!!!!)
Last edited:
Playboypenguin
Moderator
What was the point of that? It did not in anyway suggest wolves where being harmful to wild animal populations or domestic livestock? In fact it even pointed out that farmers are reimbursed for animals killed by wolves (even though they are not causing added losses to ranchers). Are you just posting random things now?
L_Killkenny
New member
I'm not gonna say that wolves don't have an effect on deer/elk populations or prey on livestock, that would be stupid. I don't buy all the so-called facts of one side more than the other. What I'm saying is they are a natural part of those states (and many other states that they aren't in) and you boys, to some extent, need to learn to deal with it. The same way the rest of us have to deal with other wildlife that adversely effects our lives. We are in the same boat more or less and I understand your issues. But IMO, far too many of the anti-wolf crowd are not willing to accept any adversity as related to wolves like the rest of us have to with our issues.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I have a raccoon that has been using the bed of my truck as his swingers pad. I have caught him in there with "company" twice now. I have learned to live with it.
3000 wolves and 75% of their diet is deer? I guess the rest of their diet is northern Minnesota livestock. From what I read here, wolves are just as much a problem in Minnesota as in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. But, you wouldn't accept that as a fact even though it's as plain as day.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
You would guess wrong. They eat everything from elk, deer, rabbits, mice, and even some insects and vegetables/fruits.
- Status