Wolves vs. Hunters

Never Cry Wolf was published in the mid 60's even though the setting may be earlier. I've read a number of Mowat's books and he's definitely a member of the lefty/liberal/socialist/enviro-whacko crowd. He once confessed to shooting at American military planes with his rifle when they passed over his house and was denied entry into the US for a number of years.
 
Agree with you overall, Keith, about Mowat. I read his "People of the Deer", as well. Seems to me his observations were pretty much factually correct; his views and his writings were romantic. I guess I spent so many years reading past dross to get to nuggets of information that I developed the knack of ignoring a lot of buzzwords and adjectives. :) (Saves a lot of time in a bureaucratic environment.)

Art
 
One aspect of wolf behavior that may have been overlooked:
When one member of the pack is killed the females automatically come into estrus. Wolf hunting on a controlled basis won't bother them at all. The packs can be stabilized if they are legally hunted.
It may be difficult to raise sheep for profit in the USA. It would be very difficult indeed to raise both sheep and wolves on the same land. There was a man that tried to raise pigs on Kodiak Island, Alaska -- it just wasn't practical.
Mike H
 
106,

You make some excellent points! People have the impression that wolves reproduce exponentially, and that's just not true. Normally, only one female and one male in a pack (the Alpha's) will breed. If you have a period of very low mortality some of the adults will split off and form new packs as the number of wolves surpass what can be comfortably carried within their territory. The numbers rise.

If you periodically cull members of a pack through trapping or hunting, the numbers tend to stabilize.

Shoot too many (as has been done periodically here in Alaska with aerial wolf control) and all of the females in a reduced pack go into estrus. The numbers rise.

As for sheep and wolves, I would disagree. In Europe and Asia, domestic sheep co-existed with wolves for millennia because shepherds with dogs and guns protected their herds and contained them at night. The difference is that here in the US, ranchers have simply adopted the habit of letting their stock run free range. They could afford to do that because our government (in its infinite wisdom) spent lots of tax dollars to poison and trap just about every living thing west of the Mississippi river right up until the 1940's. Thank you very much!

I have to admit I don't have much sympathy for the average rancher. Most of them (not all!!), live off of a form of rural welfare. They lease thousands of acres from the taxpayer (for pennies an acre) to raise stock. Many of them overgraze and harm that property. Many of them try to drive hunters off of their leased PUBLIC (my) property - I've had this happen to me more than once! They demand (and get) all kinds of services from the feds and states in return for their pennies an acre.

So, when I hear a rancher on TV complain that wolves will kill his sheep or calves, my first question is whether he is talking about private land or leased BLM land. If he owns his own land I think he ought to be able to shoot any wolf or big cat he thinks is threatening his stock. If he's the average rancher who is living off the largesse of the taxpayer and running stock on public lands, I think he should suck it up. I don't have any more sympathy for him than for a welfare recipient who complains when we cut his payments.
 
Wellllll...Sagebrush is a replacement growth, going berzerkoid where the grass has been overgrazed. This is a major problem for the Rocky Mountain Bighorns; their winter range is way, way overgrazed. But, mule deer do just fine in sagebrush country...

Bighorn sheep are sheep are grazers. Deer are goats are browsers. :)

Art
 
Art,

I'm not sure what you mean... I didn't mean the overgrazing was necessarily hurting wildlife, except in the general sense. Overgrazing creates erosion, etc, which is bad news since for the landowners - us.
 
Keith -

Would it suprise you to learn the federal government still provides predator control for sheep flocks?

Without getting embroiled in the rancher/public lands dispute, I will advise that several years ago I personally observed your tax dollars at work protecting a band of sheep here in Arizona. This band is moved annually from the high mountain pastures to the desert area, then back again in the spring. At all times, there is a federal predator control officer that travels with the band, charged with eliminating as many coyotes as possible along the way. He was provided with a muffled Remington 700 heavy barreled, accurized 22-250, same in 25-06, traps (leg hold traps are forbidden by state law, yet he was exempt), a 4WD pickup and living expenses while away from home.

The Control Officer was very upfront when talking to my contract crew on what he was doing, demonstrated the rifles, let some of us fire a few shots to ascertain the accuracy and even took a couple of crew members out for long range varmit shoot during off-time hours.

Don't know what sort of sweetheart deal the herder had with the government, but there was a lot of tax money being spent to assure nothing munched on his sheep. Far as I know, the same band is receiving the same protection today.
 
Keith, certain plants are indicators of overgrazing. They replace the original grasses. So, the creosote bush or greasewood in the southwest spreads out when overgrazing destroys the root system--aided and abetted by drouth, etc. Further, in our area, we have a false agave called lecheguilla which parallels the greasewood, but commonly in either different soils or at different elevations.

The Terlingua area was heavily overgrazed during the WW I era. There are photos of lush grassland areas, "before"; now, some areas are bald clay moonscapes without even greasewood.

Dunno if it's still there, but there was a diorama at the Sonoran Desert Museum at Tucson of the Phoenix-Tucson area. It showed the lush grasslands, pre-ranching; the changes during the ranching period, and the greasewood-covered flats of today.

In the mountain states, sage is an indicator of overgrazing, replacing the original grasses. So, when you drive along and see hundreds or thousands of acres of sagebrush flats, you're looking at "ruint land".

These plants were originally present, but in much sparser populations.

Art
 
When he was out cruising for grazing lands, Granville Stuart reported in his diary that certain areas had more sage than grass, and were even then not suitable for grazing in his opinion.

I don't remember the exact year, but it was before the huge herds were thrown out on the eastern Montana range. (I would have to go back to the library to check it out since I don't own the book)


Edit: I have to wonder just a little about the Tucson diorama - it could be made to show anything that they wanted (witnesss how the anti-gun crowd twist facts).

The homesteaders of the early 20th century did more to ruin the Montana range than anyone - plowed up native sod and tried to grow wheat where precip averages 8-12" (and many years is far less than 8")
 
Art,

OK, I see what you were driving at. My experience in the west is limited to a few years living in Colorado. I used to hunt a lot on BLM land on the west slope, which is pretty arid country. Most of that country looked to be pretty eroded and it was certainly heavy in sagebrush. I don't know what it looked like 125 years ago.
I do know that when I hunted there I'd always have to fend off ranchers who'd try and drive me off as if they owned the place. They got away with it at first because I didn't know any better, but after talking to people I learned to carry a map showing public and private property and I'd give them hell right back. They didn't have any hunter-harrassment laws on the books or I'd have tried to charge them under that.

Those experiences still stick in my craw! I'll bet they still pull that crap and get away with it because most people just don't understand that BLM land is public land.
 
Finally, here is a document which is able to say and support what I have been so inept at saying.

This is a must read for anyone who has an opinion on this subject.

If you contributed to this post, please go to this link.

For those of you who agree with reintroduction and differed with what I said, this is what I was trying to say.

For those who pointed out the impact of wolves in Alaska, read this.

Because wolf reintroduction has so many contributing factors and differences of opinion, this article along with naming and giving credit to the supporting research it is quite long. But if you have a strong opinion on this subject (like I do) you need to read all of it to be fair to this issue.

http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/policyrep/wolf.html
 
That's an excellent piece of work!

If I could reduce that to something small enough to chew on, it would be the nugget that wolf control is a political rather than a biological issue.
I'd say it was paramount that hunters in the west get their ducks in a row now, to begin the process of putting wolves on the list of game animals. Or, at least get a firm commitment to put them on that list at a certain number. This isn't like the grizzly bear that may take generations to increase to a sustainable number, this is going to happen pretty fast.
You're going to have a fight on your hands, but biology is on your side.
 
I'm not at all surprised by the lying. We've all commented about it in gun-control discussions, and the same people are in the pro-wolf argument as in the anti-gun argument. Why would one expect different behavior within any agenda?

A major problem with the various environmental agencies is that many Green/Sierra types are majoring in such disciplines as wildlife biology and seeking/getting employment. USF&WS; EPA, etc. Again, "agenda".

I'm not at all startled by the statements about wolf and bear predation plus hunting being additive against prey populations. Similar results obtained from studies in Georgia for predation against their bobwhite quail populations.

The sinusoidal wave form of wildlife populations is well known. The time-lag between the waves for prey and predators is also well known. I had not given thought to the specifics of a ten-year interval for moose/wolf mentioned in the article.

Thanks, Elkslayer,

Art,
 
We don't have any wolfs up here yet but we do have too many Coyotes, here is what I do to them during hunting season,I do my share to cut the population down;)No closed season for coyote's in NH. Aim small hit small. RAMbo.
 

Attachments

  • coyotes.jpg
    coyotes.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 62
Mexican Grey Wolves and Coyotes in same basket to me. I see em I'm going to shoot them, shovel, and shut up which is the Montana way. I spend a lot of time in and around where the Grey's are supposed to be....suspect many others feel the same exact way. I know people in MT, ID, and WY have no use for wolves....only the sleazoid tree hugging communists back east and on the left coast. That bunch is probably HQd in San Fran.
Such a pretty business.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wolf book

If you'd like to read an account of wolf behavior from wanton killing to the difficulty of bagging one read a book called "Alaskas Wolf Man". It's a book authored by Jim Reardon about a man named Frank Glaser who spent his life in the Alaskan wilderness from 1915 through 1955. He was a trapper, professional hunter and later a government hunter during those years and offers good insight into wolf behavior and they dynamic between wolves and prey species. The guy was tough as nails and performed some amazing feats while performing his job. The book is an excellent adventure read in addition to being very informative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top