The transplanted wolves from Canada aren't and weren't a natural part of the states they have been transplanted to in the USA. They are much bigger and more ferocious than their predecessors. BTW, L_Killkenny, that's a damned easy and arrogant statement for someone from Iowa to make. If you had to worry about your kids and grandkids being out in the woods of your state, maybe you'd sing a different song.
Wolves are causing big problems in Idaho.
- Thread starter Big Bill
- Start date
- Status
What is it about us humans that causes a wolf to not be interested in use for a meal? Maybe its the smoothness of our skin, they don't think its food unless they get a mouthful of hair in every bite
The wolf will not hesitate to take on a large antlered wild animal, but us wimpy humans cause them fear.
They have "Evolved", they learned that two legged creatures make a big boom and they get hurt!
it took a couple hundred years of intense hunting and trapping, but they caught on, kind of like the deer along I-80, the smart ones caught on and they survived. And I mean they survived!
The year those lying fed's put the wolf on the threatened list, we relocated our hunting camp because of the wolf populations(29 years ago). Of course the wolf had well defined pack boundary's and we could hunt areas between packs with great success, well those areas are gone now. One has to hunt closer to towns to find high deer populations.
I myself could care less if I ever shoot another deer, but I love to hunt, but the youngsters don't see deer and they do loose interest. This will hurt all hunters when young hunters loose interest.
I took my Grandson across the county to where we used to hunt(before I bought my hunting shack) because after 2 weekends of hunting and not even seeing fresh sign we had to try something different.
When I got to the area where i would get 3 deer most years, no deer sign was seen. 2 inches of snow and not one track crossing the road in miles. 12 years back we would count 75 tracks crossing by morning after a fesh snow in a 1 mile stretch. Then I talked to the local hunting camps. 1 - 2 deer sighted all season. Nothing on the meat pole!, Why I asked? Wolves was their answer. Of course what they think doesn't matter to some as its just not scientific.
And I still think the Wolf is an amazing creature. Its the preservationist I dislike.
The wolf will not hesitate to take on a large antlered wild animal, but us wimpy humans cause them fear.
They have "Evolved", they learned that two legged creatures make a big boom and they get hurt!
it took a couple hundred years of intense hunting and trapping, but they caught on, kind of like the deer along I-80, the smart ones caught on and they survived. And I mean they survived!
The year those lying fed's put the wolf on the threatened list, we relocated our hunting camp because of the wolf populations(29 years ago). Of course the wolf had well defined pack boundary's and we could hunt areas between packs with great success, well those areas are gone now. One has to hunt closer to towns to find high deer populations.
I myself could care less if I ever shoot another deer, but I love to hunt, but the youngsters don't see deer and they do loose interest. This will hurt all hunters when young hunters loose interest.
I took my Grandson across the county to where we used to hunt(before I bought my hunting shack) because after 2 weekends of hunting and not even seeing fresh sign we had to try something different.
When I got to the area where i would get 3 deer most years, no deer sign was seen. 2 inches of snow and not one track crossing the road in miles. 12 years back we would count 75 tracks crossing by morning after a fesh snow in a 1 mile stretch. Then I talked to the local hunting camps. 1 - 2 deer sighted all season. Nothing on the meat pole!, Why I asked? Wolves was their answer. Of course what they think doesn't matter to some as its just not scientific.
And I still think the Wolf is an amazing creature. Its the preservationist I dislike.
Here's the Bottom Line for Idaho.
IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID
Date: March 6, 2009
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700
wolf delisting rule announced
Idaho Fish and Game officials welcomed the announcement Friday, March 6, that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar affirmed the decision to delist the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
"We applaud this effort," Fish and Game Director Cal Groen said. "This is good news for wolves, elk, rural communities and hunters. I believe this action will help defuse the animosity and anger associated with wolves when we can manage wolves in concert with our other big game species."
The Endangered Species Act was not meant to keep animals listed forever; it was designed to turn management back to the states, he said.
Friday's announcement doesn't include Wyoming, because that state's wolf management plan has not met the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salazar said. Idaho and Montana have approved wolf management plans.
"I don't believe we should hold these two states hostage," Salazar said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, which made the decision to delist gray wolves in Idaho and Montana in January, will send the delisting rule to the Federal Register for publication. The rule would take effect in mid to late April, 30 days after publication.
When delisting becomes official, Idaho would again take over managing wolves under state law adopted in 2008 and under a wolf population management plan also adopted last year.
"Our plan is to manage wolves as we do other big game," Groen said.
Fish and Game is ready to apply the same professional wildlife management practices to wolves as it has applied to all big game species, which all have recovered from low populations during the early 1900s, he said.
Wolves were all but extirpated in Idaho by the 1930s. They were declared endangered in 1974, and a federal recovery effort brought 35 wolves to central Idaho in 1995 and 1996. Wolf numbers have grown steadily since then, to a minimum of 846 today.
Fish and Game has supported recovery efforts. Based on the Legislature's 2002 Wolf Conservation Plan, Fish and Game biologists developed a wolf population management plan, adopted by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in March 2008.
Fish and Game will propose wolf hunting seasons this fall, subject to Fish and Game Commission approval.
For information contact Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth at 208-334-3700.
The Fish and U.S. Wildlife Service delisting documents are available at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/.
IDAHO FISH AND GAME
HEADQUARTERS NEWS RELEASE
Boise, ID
Date: March 6, 2009
Contact: Ed Mitchell
(208) 334-3700
wolf delisting rule announced
Idaho Fish and Game officials welcomed the announcement Friday, March 6, that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar affirmed the decision to delist the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains.
"We applaud this effort," Fish and Game Director Cal Groen said. "This is good news for wolves, elk, rural communities and hunters. I believe this action will help defuse the animosity and anger associated with wolves when we can manage wolves in concert with our other big game species."
The Endangered Species Act was not meant to keep animals listed forever; it was designed to turn management back to the states, he said.
Friday's announcement doesn't include Wyoming, because that state's wolf management plan has not met the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salazar said. Idaho and Montana have approved wolf management plans.
"I don't believe we should hold these two states hostage," Salazar said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, which made the decision to delist gray wolves in Idaho and Montana in January, will send the delisting rule to the Federal Register for publication. The rule would take effect in mid to late April, 30 days after publication.
When delisting becomes official, Idaho would again take over managing wolves under state law adopted in 2008 and under a wolf population management plan also adopted last year.
"Our plan is to manage wolves as we do other big game," Groen said.
Fish and Game is ready to apply the same professional wildlife management practices to wolves as it has applied to all big game species, which all have recovered from low populations during the early 1900s, he said.
Wolves were all but extirpated in Idaho by the 1930s. They were declared endangered in 1974, and a federal recovery effort brought 35 wolves to central Idaho in 1995 and 1996. Wolf numbers have grown steadily since then, to a minimum of 846 today.
Fish and Game has supported recovery efforts. Based on the Legislature's 2002 Wolf Conservation Plan, Fish and Game biologists developed a wolf population management plan, adopted by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in March 2008.
Fish and Game will propose wolf hunting seasons this fall, subject to Fish and Game Commission approval.
For information contact Fish and Game Deputy Director Jim Unsworth at 208-334-3700.
The Fish and U.S. Wildlife Service delisting documents are available at http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/.
L_Killkenny
New member
Now that's dang funny right there!!!
Lot closer to natural than you and a cow, yes? And no it's not arrogant just honest. I'll guarantee that the deer here in Iowa cause a MINIMUM of 10 times the monetary damage than the wolves will ever cause you out there. Crop damage alone is figured at $4.5 billion in the US. Arrogant? Think not.
Can you imagine what the US would be like if everyone was allowed to kill deer just because they bothered or destroyed property and crops? And deer, while a natural part of Iowa's eco system had to be reintroduced and managed just like the wolf. Bet there are SOME farmers that wish they were all gone. But they are idiots. My problem is not with control but with the absolutism which you people fight, and have fought since the idea of reintroduction, the wolf. To me there is a happy medium. The bunny huggers want absolute protection. The ranchers and deer/elk hunters want them 100% gone. Both parties need to learn to live with some control which should be decided by the area Game and Fish Department. But they are there, IMO they should be there, I like them there, and I wouldn't care if they were here as long as they were controlled and managed. Like I said, happy medium.
L_Killkenny
New member
Bill, car/deer accidents kill 150 people annually. How many people in the US have been killed since reintroduction of the wolf into the lower 48?
According to the documentary on PBS that did a reasonably good job of presenting both sides of the argument, wolves most certainly kill cattle in some areas, and the rancher is compensated for the loss by the government. In other areas, cattle killing wolves can be killed by the rancher. Not all wolves kill cattle. The documentary, as I recall, covered Idaho, as well as those areas outside of Yellowstone Park which the wolves have now occupied.
Maybe the Ranchers who protect their cattle and, at the same time, aren't against wolf reintroduction in general have the right idea. Both the ranchers and the "liberals" can be pretty extreme in their opinions on how to manage the wolf populations, IMO.
There was never a contention by anyone, Wildlife Dept., Sportsmen, Ranchers, etc., that "all the game was being killed off".
Double Naught Spy
New member
Quoted from the Bryan-College Station Eagle, October 30, 1990 for educational purposes:
Sure, everyone wants to experience the great outdoors with none of the risks of the great outdoors. This sort of reminds me of people who move out into the country to get away from the city, but then still want all the conveniences of the city (fire, medical, police, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, convenience stores).
Common sense and a watchful eye will go far in keeping one's little ones safe. If you can't do that, then have the reunion at a city park.
Last edited:
Sure livestock owners get reimbursed for the animal that is confirmed to have been killed by wolves. So he/she gets paid for that animal but what about the rest of the damage done to the livestock herd? What does the Government pay for that?
My question is this? A livestock producer is paid for his animals by the pound and there are a lot of factors that may reduce the cost of what the calf is sold for. Wall Street, high fuel prices, and weather will all effect what some feeder will pay per pound to buy a weaned calf. The rancher has no say on what the market will do the day he takes his cattle to auction, all he can do is try and pack as many pounds as possible on his product.
Say he takes 300 calves to auction at an average of 550 pounds and that day he sells them all for $1 a pound or $550 each. That is a total of $165,000 gross that he made that day. Now take out his operating expenses, any land payments, and taxes hopefully he makes over $30,000 income at the end of the year. Say that next year wolves harassed his cattle and he lost 10 calves that could have went to market, and based on previous years sales the Government pays him $5500 for those calves. However when he takes the remaining calves to market they average 10 pounds less and only weigh 540 lbs and still bring $1 per pound, that gives him a loss of $2900 from the previous year.
Plus when he checks his cows he comes up with a 10 more cows than his normal average that didn't breed back, so he has reduced his production the next year by another another 10 calves. Now he will have to buy back cows to keep his herd at the normal level of production. Plus he might have incurred extra operating expense having to maintain fences torn down by cattle being pushed through it as well as extra time and fuel spend searching for his animals, and patrolling his herds to keep wolves out of it. He might of even had to hire on some help to get this all done, which contributes to a loss in income.
There is always other damage done besides the obvious that the Government pays for. Besides how long in this economy before the Government cuts out paying for the damages done by wolves and other wild animals?
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/live_news_detail.asp?id=1018
Yes but how much does the Iowa farmer make charging people to hunt his fields? In Colorado if you charge more than $75 per hunter on your property you loose any rights to restitution for damage caused by wildlife on your property by the State. What does an Iowa deer lease cost these days?
Last winter a CO Rancher was charged with killing several elk on his property after they damaged his haystacks. That same Rancher was leasing out his land to an outfitter for over $80,000 a year. I don't know about you but if I was getting paid that kind of money for a lease, I imagine I'd be happy to feed the elk on my property to keep that kind of income coming in every year.
Besides one animal killing any livestock is a problem to any farmer/rancher, regardless if it is a bear, cat, wolf, coyote, badger, raccoon, weasel, or feral dogs. Just like too many deer, elk, or pronghorn in one field are a serious problem as well to farmers and ranchers. Compared to deer the population of wolves is very minuscule.
My question is this? A livestock producer is paid for his animals by the pound and there are a lot of factors that may reduce the cost of what the calf is sold for. Wall Street, high fuel prices, and weather will all effect what some feeder will pay per pound to buy a weaned calf. The rancher has no say on what the market will do the day he takes his cattle to auction, all he can do is try and pack as many pounds as possible on his product.
Say he takes 300 calves to auction at an average of 550 pounds and that day he sells them all for $1 a pound or $550 each. That is a total of $165,000 gross that he made that day. Now take out his operating expenses, any land payments, and taxes hopefully he makes over $30,000 income at the end of the year. Say that next year wolves harassed his cattle and he lost 10 calves that could have went to market, and based on previous years sales the Government pays him $5500 for those calves. However when he takes the remaining calves to market they average 10 pounds less and only weigh 540 lbs and still bring $1 per pound, that gives him a loss of $2900 from the previous year.
Plus when he checks his cows he comes up with a 10 more cows than his normal average that didn't breed back, so he has reduced his production the next year by another another 10 calves. Now he will have to buy back cows to keep his herd at the normal level of production. Plus he might have incurred extra operating expense having to maintain fences torn down by cattle being pushed through it as well as extra time and fuel spend searching for his animals, and patrolling his herds to keep wolves out of it. He might of even had to hire on some help to get this all done, which contributes to a loss in income.
There is always other damage done besides the obvious that the Government pays for. Besides how long in this economy before the Government cuts out paying for the damages done by wolves and other wild animals?
http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/live_news_detail.asp?id=1018
Yes but how much does the Iowa farmer make charging people to hunt his fields? In Colorado if you charge more than $75 per hunter on your property you loose any rights to restitution for damage caused by wildlife on your property by the State. What does an Iowa deer lease cost these days?
Last winter a CO Rancher was charged with killing several elk on his property after they damaged his haystacks. That same Rancher was leasing out his land to an outfitter for over $80,000 a year. I don't know about you but if I was getting paid that kind of money for a lease, I imagine I'd be happy to feed the elk on my property to keep that kind of income coming in every year.
Besides one animal killing any livestock is a problem to any farmer/rancher, regardless if it is a bear, cat, wolf, coyote, badger, raccoon, weasel, or feral dogs. Just like too many deer, elk, or pronghorn in one field are a serious problem as well to farmers and ranchers. Compared to deer the population of wolves is very minuscule.
Last edited:
L_Killkenny
New member
I have never paid to hunt in my life. Far from popular belief, 99% of hunting on Iowa's farmland are free for the asking. Most farmers let someone hunt their land. It may only be relatives, it may be the kids down the road, it maybe some like me that just knocked on their door, etc but very little land is leased. What land I do see leased is for pheasant. On the other hand, much of the timber lands have been sold off to the wealthy for development and private hunting land (not to be confused with a lease).
Pretty much my point.
L_Killkenny, Iowa has measures they can take to control the deer population. They can increase bag limits and add extra seasons or make them longer. Iowa can add cull hunts as well if needed. I'm happy your State has managed to stay 99% free to hunt for the asking, too many are losing that privilege.
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho hasn't had good methods to control their wolves because of Federal protection. My biggest problem with the wolf is that the people who fought to get them reintroduced keep changing the rules. When the agreed upon wolf population was reached and they were going to delist the wolves and turn control back to the State they sued the Federal Government to stop it. If left unchecked this little problem could become a very large one.
It looks like the wolf will finally be delisted and States will be allowed to control their populations. I'm just waiting for the next injunction or law suit to come down the pipe though. I have no faith that the special interest groups will let this go without a fight.
I do however dream of the day that I will be able to get a Wolf tag and hunt one of them to do my part to ensure that the wolf is here to stay. I dream as well of the day when the grizzly bear has recovered enough to be delisted in the lower 48 and be hunted as well. I imagine I'll be able to hunt the wolf in my lifetime, maybe the next generation might get the grizzly bear.
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho hasn't had good methods to control their wolves because of Federal protection. My biggest problem with the wolf is that the people who fought to get them reintroduced keep changing the rules. When the agreed upon wolf population was reached and they were going to delist the wolves and turn control back to the State they sued the Federal Government to stop it. If left unchecked this little problem could become a very large one.
It looks like the wolf will finally be delisted and States will be allowed to control their populations. I'm just waiting for the next injunction or law suit to come down the pipe though. I have no faith that the special interest groups will let this go without a fight.
I do however dream of the day that I will be able to get a Wolf tag and hunt one of them to do my part to ensure that the wolf is here to stay. I dream as well of the day when the grizzly bear has recovered enough to be delisted in the lower 48 and be hunted as well. I imagine I'll be able to hunt the wolf in my lifetime, maybe the next generation might get the grizzly bear.
Playboypenguin
Yes, there most assuredly is. We have hunted deer in the Methow Valley for over 20 years. We have not seen a legal buck the last three seasons, and we hunt hard. The number of deer in the area is way down, overall. Many people I have talked to, including game wardens, attribute a large percentage of the decline to wolves. You may call that anecdotal evidence, but people who actually hunt in the area believe it to be fact.
Double Naught Spy
New member
You know, you won't see the other farmers whose crops aren't being eaten by deer complaining about wolves.
http://www.cdaid.org/mod/userpage/images/deer2.pdf
Gee, and farmers get depredation $$ for deer damage as well...
http://idahofarmbureau.blogspot.com/2009/03/idaho-landowners-deal-with-depredation.html
It seems that some recent methods, such as propane exploders and electronic guards were ineffective for protecting fields from deer predation. Maybe they need some wolves?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784993
http://www.cdaid.org/mod/userpage/images/deer2.pdf
Gee, and farmers get depredation $$ for deer damage as well...
http://idahofarmbureau.blogspot.com/2009/03/idaho-landowners-deal-with-depredation.html
It seems that some recent methods, such as propane exploders and electronic guards were ineffective for protecting fields from deer predation. Maybe they need some wolves?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3784993
Last edited:
Playboypenguin
Moderator
What you just quoted is the very epitome of anecdotal. Do you not understand that? It also does not correspond with the reality of existing deer and elk populations. It is someone making an uneducated claim based on an uniformed observation that is countered by factual evidence.
I didn't see a bald eagle this week when crossing the I-205 bridge. I guess the bald eagles must be nearing extinction. Oh wait...you mean the last rookery count has them at the highest number in years. That is not what I saw so the facts must be wrong and my limited observation must be right.
You must believe that aliens are taking a huge number of Idaho's cattle too, since there are so many stories on the internet about it happening.
#18indycolts
Moderator
wolves are wild, running into wild animals while you're in the wild shouldn't be anything new. Thats where the word "wildlife" comes into play.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
The thrust of Playboy Penguin's statements seems to be that while wolves will kill the occasional elk or deer, they won't kill cattle--or if they do, it won't be "significant".
There is no such thing as an insignificant loss of from $400 to $1,000.
One telling comment from Post #33 is, "“Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals… come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle….”
I know from decades of observation of wild animals that if there is no hunting, there is little fear of man. That holds for deer, coyotes and quail. I didn't say NO fear; I said little fear. As in they're not gonna panic in an effort to escape.
Again, no one anecdote is evidence. But consistent stories from numerous people over a lengthy number of years is reliable. Our society has come to the erroneous belief that the expertise of government employees is somehow superior to the experience and knowledge of a farmer or rancher on the ground.
Peripheral: The state's experts, the game wardens, of south Georgia are dubious that there could possibly be any cougars in the area around Thomasville. Why? They've not seen any, per newspaper articles. My wife has seen three, over a several-year period. How does she know what a cougar looks like? Because she can look at the hide that's draped over the back of the couch in our living room.
And the idea that ranchers should learn to co-exist with wolves is no different from saying that mom'n'pops and banks should learn to co-exist with robbers or that women should learn to co-exist with abusers.
There is no such thing as an insignificant loss of from $400 to $1,000.
One telling comment from Post #33 is, "“Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals… come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle….”
I know from decades of observation of wild animals that if there is no hunting, there is little fear of man. That holds for deer, coyotes and quail. I didn't say NO fear; I said little fear. As in they're not gonna panic in an effort to escape.
Again, no one anecdote is evidence. But consistent stories from numerous people over a lengthy number of years is reliable. Our society has come to the erroneous belief that the expertise of government employees is somehow superior to the experience and knowledge of a farmer or rancher on the ground.
Peripheral: The state's experts, the game wardens, of south Georgia are dubious that there could possibly be any cougars in the area around Thomasville. Why? They've not seen any, per newspaper articles. My wife has seen three, over a several-year period. How does she know what a cougar looks like? Because she can look at the hide that's draped over the back of the couch in our living room.
And the idea that ranchers should learn to co-exist with wolves is no different from saying that mom'n'pops and banks should learn to co-exist with robbers or that women should learn to co-exist with abusers.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Close, but not quite. The wolves do kill cattle...but they do not kill cattle at a rate that effects total losses. They kill cattle that would have been lost to age and disease anyway. They take the weak and the sick from the herd. The only difference is the doomed animal ends up supporting the natural food chain instead of rotting in a ditch.
Why do you think they only single out the weak and sick? What proof do you have to support this? Wolves will kill the first animal available not just the sick, guess you don't have much experience with predators other than what you find on the web.
Wolves are pretty much the Apex predator in their environment along with bears and lions. They can pretty much take down and kill any sized animal they want as long as they are with their pack, one on one they would have trouble with any animal larger than a deer.
- Status