Wolves are causing big problems in Idaho.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cat Problems?

There are areas in the United States that are experiencing unprecedented problems with mountain lions. West coast states are being overrun by the big cats. There are reports of sightings in states that people thought didn't even have them. Too many large felines, like too many wolves can cause problems. But, from what I have heard, wolves are one creature that used to help keep the mountain lion population in check. No, a wolf isn't goofy enough to take on a large cat. I have heard they would take out the lion's offsprings when given half a chance.

I don't know how much deer depredation is caused by wolves. They do say that an average cougar will take one deer a week. That means one cat will kill over fifty a year. If an area has 500 cats there goes deer. Also, cougars have killed and eaten our species.Wolf attacks on humans are sketchy at best.

I am a hunter. If the powers that be in this state say shooting any given species is kosher, I might. If an animal is in such numbers as to cause harm to humans then controling it is fine. But, I also do believe that nature does the best job of taking care of itself.
 
Some time back I read about the dog genome project. They mapped out a dog's DNA. They found that a dog and a wolf share over 99% of the same genetic code. A dog is more closely related to a wolf then we are to chimps. In fact, a dog is more closely related to a wolf then a wolf is to a coyote. For all intenet and purpose they are the same species.

If I had to shoot a wolf for defensive purposes I would do so in a heartbeat. Other then that, they remind me too much of dogs to randomly shoot.
 
For all intenet and purpose they are the same species.
Click to expand...

No, they really are not, not unless they are a naturally breeding population, which dogs and wolves are not. They can breed, but that does not make them the same species, nor does closely sharing of DNA.
 
re:DoubleNaughtSpy

Actually they might be the same species. One theory is that domestic dogs were once wolves. Therefore they would indeed be one and the same. Also, look at a pack of feral dogs. It doesn't take long for little fido to revert to his old ways.
 
I guess one way to look at it is that the psychology of tame dogs is different from wolves, and that maybe feral dogs revert back to "type". But I dunno.

I don't figure I need to know how many sheep or cows are killed by wolves or bears. What difference does it make? It's a financial loss to a guy who's in the business of producing food and fiber in order to feed his family, pay the bills and the tax man. Same for the elk. Guys make a living by taking hunters out to hunt and thereby feed their families. Few elk, fewer hunters, more repos. Bummer.

If there were any fair and equitable system to recompense ranchers, it might be acceptable to please the wolf-lovers and have a bunch of howling at night. Trouble is, the system turns the wolves loose and burdens the rancher with the onus of proving what killed an animal--which commonly is near-impossible after the scavengers show up. The system supposes that livestock have 24-hour observation, and that's dumber'n dirt.

Probably the best thing for a rancher to do in the midst of all this citified do-good is to spend some time tape-recording wolf howls. Make a lengthy, quite realistic taped sequence. Sell the cows. Advertise in "Sierra" magazine, "Come hear the wolves!" Charge $100/night to camp out and listen. At night, be off a few hundred yards and crank up the boom box. Happy Sierra Clubbers. Remunerated rancher. No cowflop to shovel. How do you beat a deal like that?
 
BFD! the wolves have been here longer than the stupid people that are whining about them! they will be here long after the arrogant humans have killed each other off when the black substance from the ground stops flowing!!!!!!!!:p
 
Species:

(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species:

Biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not as categories or types. This view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely-held, with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species. Instead, a species is now defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as genetics and morphology are used to help separate closely-related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[1] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species concerned.[3]


For what it's worth, all "dogs" are all variances within a kind. There is one species "Canine" or whatever you prefer, with variations within that "kind". Same with horses, cats, rodents and many other "species". Mostly, when people use the term "evolution" they are using it incorrectly. If any given change within a species is not NEW information then it is NOT evolution. Dogs are a perfect example. Within the basic genetic code of dogs is the capacity to produce both large and small varieties. A wolf (or Great Dane or Chihuahua) is not an "evolved" version of a dog. It is, in fact, a dog that has LESS information that it's ancestors. As is every other variety of the dog kind. They have not evolved, they have LOST information from their ancestors, quite the opposite of evolution.

If any two versions of a dog cannot interbreed it does not imply evolution. It implies de-evolution.
 
Last edited:
creature said:
If something is repeated and believed often enough it becomes accepted fact (think of scientific theories which can only be proven to a certain point but are generally accepted after having been debated and cited enough times). Much in science throughout history was attributable to brilliant people who conceived of theories to explain things in the natural world which could not be readily or directly tested (for instance the early theories about atoms which are things you cannot see!) but since experiment after experiment seemed to support their existence, their existence became accepted “fact”.
Click to expand...

Oh, gee, let's see...
Brilliant people's theories and repeated "facts"...
Al Gore's Global warming
Bellerman's "coming Ice Age" in the 70's
Walter Schottky's eugenic ideas about blacks?
Goebbels propaganda on the jews, slavs, and blacks?
White southerners belief that blacks were sub-human?
Or maybe you're referring to the quaint British Victorian idea that all the Earth's flora and fauna were put here for Man and His uses or exploitations?

Pre-1840: Train speeds over 40mph will destroy the human body
Pre-1900: No man will every fly in the skies like a bird
Pre-1940: Space flight is impossible-there's nothing to push against.
Pre-1950: Airplanes cannot fly faster than sound
Pre-1960: Absolutely impossible to run a mile under 4 minutes.
 
re:Peetzakilla

Thanks for the reference. However, there is a difference amongst the animals you have cited. Horses and burros and zebras can be interbred, but their offsprings are fertile. A lion and tiger can be crossbred, again the new animal produced can not produce anymore. The genetics are close, but no cigar when if comes to fertility.

Any two dogs that are bred can then breed again. A wolf-dog hybrid can have its own litter of pups. That is why you can have have dogs with different percentages of wolf blood.
 
Oh, gee, let's see...
Brilliant people's theories and repeated "facts"...
Al Gore's Global warming
Bellerman's "coming Ice Age" in the 70's
Walter Schottky's eugenic ideas about blacks?
Goebbels propaganda on the jews, slavs, and blacks?
White southerners belief that blacks were sub-human?
Or maybe you're referring to the quaint British Victorian idea that all the Earth's flora and fauna were put here for Man and His uses or exploitations?

Pre-1840: Train speeds over 40mph will destroy the human body
Pre-1900: No man will every fly in the skies like a bird
Pre-1940: Space flight is impossible-there's nothing to push against.
Pre-1950: Airplanes cannot fly faster than sound
Pre-1960: Absolutely impossible to run a mile under 4 minutes.
Click to expand...

Ever see a black hole? Theory of Evolution? Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Only one theory needs to be proven to be true for that "never" statement to be proven false.
 
Last edited:
I believe roy reali had a typo, saying "fertile" in lieu of "infertile" in "...but their offsprings are fertile."

BillCA, you ignored one very important phrase in your response: "...since experiment after experiment seemed to support their existence, their existence became accepted “fact”.

Tne outcome of an experiment is nowhere near being pure opinion or unsupported fact.

Al Gore's global warming concepts and the political views resulting from them have little or nothing to do with any real climate change. For instance, the tree-ring folks have reasonably well established that the SW US has been increasingly dry for some 800 years or more--but I doubt that mankind's CO2 was causative.

I've always figured that if there is consistency in stories from folks on the ground over a number of years, and inclusive of folks whose billfolds are impacted, there is at least some reason to pay heed. When the stories are in line with my own observations of animal behavior through many decades, I see no reason for scoffing.

Funny how people are willing to believe an individual's account of rape or child molestation, but unwilling to believe an individual's account of an encounter with an animal.
 
Wow, I actually have to go to work for a day or two and the conversation has taken a weird arc towards genetics. It is going to take awhile to catch up on this one.
 
Art Eastman said:
BillCA, you ignored one very important phrase in your response: "...since experiment after experiment seemed to support their existence, their existence became accepted “fact”.

Tne outcome of an experiment is nowhere near being pure opinion or unsupported fact.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct, Art. I did ignore that phrase. Mostly it was to show some of the "accepted hypothesis" of times past were no longer relevant.

But one sticks out in my mind: The earth is flat.

There were a number of ships launched throughout history that were sent to uncharted waters to find "the edge of the world". Almost none came back. The "accepted" theory was that many sailed off the edge at night, unable to see their approaching doom. Those that did return were often the result of "cold feet" by captain or crew (telling tales [perhaps] of sea monsters forcing their return).

Even as late as the 1920's, established phsyics professors claimed there was no way to travel in a vacuum because there would be no resistance for a rocket's motor to "push against", thus it would make no headway.

I was off, however, about the 4-minute mile. It should have been pre-1950 or 1940. Bannister broke the 4-minute mile barrier in 1954 and I thought it was 1962. Oops. :o Still, people had tried very very hard to beat the 4-minute mark. Up until the mid-1940's it had been considered impossible.

The current theory is that the speed of light is an absolute universal physical limit. (Star Trek & Star Wars not withstanding.) Yet, a single UV photons split with a crystal into two outgoing red photons will exhibit the total energy of the UV photon across vast distances instantly - violating Einstein's rule that information exchange is limited to the speed of light. He deemed this finding to be "Spooky at a distance".

All of this is a way of saying ancedotal evidence is just that. I have no doubt that wolves have killed people over the millennia and will continue to do so when the situation exists where hungry predators meet unprepared man.

Are Wolves any more aggressive and viscious than, say a Tiger, Leopard or Lion? Given each is very hungry for lack of game or ability to take game, I don't think so. Hyena, primarily a scavenger, should be shot on site, IMO. They don't learn or they learn very slowly.

Historically, man dislikes any animal who competes with him as being at the top of the food chain. Sharks, big cats, bears, wolves all get killed. In some people it extends to any predator species, even snakes and spiders.

Dogs are an offshoot of the Wolf. I suspect that ages ago, a primitive man found some wolf cubs and raised them. The ones that were too aggressive he killed. Over time, he ends up with Wolves that are "just" aggressive enough, yet willing to accept him as their leader. Centuries of breeding and cross-breeding have brought us the modern dog. Bred for certain traits, some more Wolf-like than others. (e.g. Herding dogs working together often use the same tactics as Wolves, just to different purposes and with different end results.)

A certain amount of predatory pressure is necessary for other species to maintain a high standard of vigor. Too much pressure can reduce the species to dangerous levels. Unfortunately, it seems that man's attempt to save the wolf, coupled with his encroachment on formerly "wild" areas creates too many conflicts. That, and forcing the wolf into too-small of an area for their populations.

Just more evidence that man is an idiot when he attempts to both "balance" nature and try to "control" it at the same time.
 
"I live in Hailey- untill you see these animals in action you have no idea. They are unbelievable. "

FT and BB- yep. I am north of Hailey in the middle of the CNF and NP forests. Thanks for the thread. I read it fast- then slow and clicked on all the links. Then wrote an 11 page reply. :eek:


Big- Windy in the woods with wolves...

The local hunters talk about the huge size of the imported Canadian wolf, the large massive head, the large 6 inch track, the fearlessness of the non-hunted beast that has decimated our elk herds and upset the balance of nature we had in our state before Federal intervention. In a deer stand the wolves come in and circle the tree and will not leave. The hunter in the tree stand is held hostage.

An elk hunter with a bow sees a pack of 12 wolves who spot him and target him as a meal. He is saved by his buddy who comes over the hill with a rifle. Hunters tell of the meadow with no elk tracks but plenty of wolf tracks where hunters have hunted elk for years. They hunted Bald Mountain for years, my neighbors did, until no elk, only wolf tracks, so they don’t hunt any more. The only hunters on the Lolo Divide Road are from out of state. They don’t know yet it is a waste of time to buy an elk tag in north central Idaho. Home of the non- native, non- endangered Canadian wolfie, where ranchers and many outfitters have gone out of business. People who used to hike and camp up Kelly Creek return no more. The place is full of wolves and folks are less and less seen on the trails of north central Idaho.

I moved to Idaho and married the Game Warden who patrolled the North Fork of the Clearwater River on the Clearwater National Forest. Back then we had a native Idaho wolf who was tall, lean and black. We got him on video. He was catching field mice just off our place. Gene told me that the local people knew about our wolves, and protected them. I thought he was nuts. I thought wolves were bad. I remembered the story Mrs. Mead told me when I was in high school. I remembered the things I had read in Wild Animals I have Known, by Ernest Seton-Thompson, copyright 1898. Some wolves wantonly kill, like old wise Lobo. Mrs. Mead was young and crossing the prairie in a wagon and the family came across a wolf kill. A cow was down, half the hindquarter eaten, then the wolf left; but the cow was still alive. Wolves can be messy killers.
But the local Idaho wolf just ate mice near our farm, never caused trouble. I began to realize we could live in harmony with wolves. All of that has changed now since the Feds upset the balance of nature, brought in the non- native very large Canadian prairie wolf. Now local public opinion has changed towards the wolf.


Really a sad deal for everybody, but espically our local Idaho wolf, who is not offical nor recognised; except by the hunters and old Game Wardens who found him in the woods before the Canadian- Fed. wolf came to Idaho.

A black angus bull was killed in north central Idaho by Canadian wolves. The kill was covered to protect the wolf tracks and the Feds were called. They arrived on the scene 3 weeks later. All evidence of a wolf kill was gone. The rancher was not compensated for his loss. I guess some ranchers are paid for confirmed wolf kills, but I have never met a rancher who was. It is not always easy to prove.

Four wolves walked down a street not far from our home. One dog and two goats just disappeared that day, no trace left. I wonder what happened to them?

I lived in Colorado in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. My friend and creditable witness told me we had wolves in south west Colorado. He had shot an elk and the wolves got to his elk before him. He watched them devour it and let them be. No photos. No camera, and no witness. Except for the fact that he saw what he saw and it would be good enough for a murder trial; but not for a credible wolf sighting.
 
Last edited:
Some came from north central Alberta, some from Woods Buffalo Range. An outfitter friend of mine was in Canada and a rancher bought him lunch. He told him the Feds paid way too much money for his "cow- killing wolves." He was astonished. Why would any body want these wolves, the Canadian rancher wondered? Some wolves came from his ranch, but we were told they were all from the wild.

I saw on a Canadian forum thy had a 100 pound wolf. I never weighed one myself. Some wolves are tall and thin, some are fatter, broader, heavier- just like horses, only different. Hight varies also.

Lobo was " a gigantic leader of a remarkable pack..." his pack was a small one , " each of these, however, was a wolf of renown, most of them were above ordinary size..." p. 17-18 Wild Animals, 1898. These wolves were in New Mexico, on the Curumpaw.

If a wolf in New Mexico can be larger than normal, it is also possible some wolves in Canada may be larger than others.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top