Gray Wolves

bulgron

bulgron

Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
12,709
I don't know, maybe this belongs in Political or Current Events or something, but there's been enough talk about predators on W&S that I thought you all might be interested.

The New York Times is reporting that Gray Wolves in the Northern Rockies are now off the endangered species list, since their population has climbed to around 1,500 or so. This is good news because, as has been discussed on this board in the past, predators that are not hunted by humans lose their fear of humans. So with them off the endangered species list, humans can now legally reassert themselves as the top dogs in the woods (so to speak).

However, the article notes that "[e]nvironmental groups have said they will sue the federal government to keep the animal listed."

Of course. :rolleyes:
 
Well, hell yeah... now that they're off the endangered list, we can go back to blasting away at them until they're back on the endangered list...where they belong!

Dern pesky wolves, who the hell do they think they are anyway...??!!
 
I live in one of the wolf states. I can tell you firsthand it's a very polarizing subject. I think most people in these states feel that we're being told what to do by the Feds (and environmental groups) and should have the right to do as we see fit since we are the people that actually live here....you know, that pesky 10th Amendment thing. :) The same can be said with grizzly bears.

I can see both sides of the argument, and personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I don't have a problem with them being in some areas, yet I also feel they should be allowed to be hunted.

To give you the sentiment of most people here, I saw this bumper sticker last week: Wolves, smoke a pack a day.
 
That is wonderful!!

Now maybe Friends of Animals, and PETA will give us Alaskans a reprieve and focus on the lower 48 for awhile!
 
I think taking them off the endangered list is just showing we are on the right track to preserving a species, however a few tags every year will only help them continue growing.
 
If there ever was an animal with an undeserved bad rep it is the Wolf. As predators they have the potential to be dangerous, and of course they prey on "our" game animals and even occasionally livestock. But anyone who thinks that wolves will deplete game animal and livestock herds is not being rational. Actually, if this were true it would be the biggest reason to allow them to thrive. There is a serious deer overpopulation problem in most areas of the US. Several hundred people are killed each year in car accidents involving deer, but I don't hear anyone proposing that we recategorize them as varmints and have an open season.
This is a complex and impassioned issue that will probably never be completely resolved. I personaly believe that there is room in the wild for wolves.
 
I sat and chatted with a game officer just outside of D.C. once. The conversation turned to the use of hunting to control population numbers. He went on and on about the folks around there that raised Cain to have the Commisiion trap out the beavers that built damns on their property and the deer that ate their shrubs and the racoons that raided their garbage cans... but shreiked when the officers offered them a destruction permit to kill the offending animals. Instead they wanted the Commision to trap and relocate the animals(at GREAT expense to the Commission). They wanted the animals to live but they wanted them to live in someone elses' back yard so someone else could deal with the problem.

I learned that day not to intefer in the goings on in other peoples backyard. I can say that in this area, many problems are being cited to the incursion of coyotes. Dead livestock, pets and a swing in rabies. Numbers are not in on the decline of game birds like Turkeys, Grouse and Quail... not to mention Fox and Bobcat.

I do not see any mention of recatagorizing them as varmints, so I would have to assume this will be controlled via stamps.

2Door
 
i don't see why you would want to hunt a wolf unless it was harming your livestock or something.

Unless you just THAT much of a mannly man that you need to prove it by hunting wolves :rolleyes:
 
blazink said:
If there ever was an animal with an undeserved bad rep it is the Wolf. As predators they have the potential to be dangerous, and of course they prey on "our" game animals and even occasionally livestock. But anyone who thinks that wolves will deplete game animal and livestock herds is not being rational.
Click to expand...

In Anchorage there's been a pack of wolves coming into crowded neighborhoods and killing family pets. They've been coming onto peoples porches and showing absolutely no fear of humans. They followed a woman who was out walking her dogs for a mile and a half trying to kill her Staffordshire Terrier and Husky. There's been several small dogs dragged off thier chains in the backyard and killed with nothing but a bloodspot and a patch of fur remaining of the family pet. Please realize also, these are not recently popped up neighborhoods encroaching on the wilderness, but rather old, well established areas, with lots of open forest available. I for one hope a few are taken out before they realize a small child is even easier to kill than a family pet. (could have already happened...I've just recently come home from the North Slope, where I don't tend to keep up with recent news very well)

In the Game Management area I used to hunt caribou, there hardly are any caribou left comparatively, though you can easily find hundreds of wolf tracks anywhere you wander in the area. bear in mind this used to be a very populated area with caribou. Rarely took more than two days to harvest the families meat, and then get back home. After that, it was back to fishin', explorin', etc. The hunting totally went to hell after wolf protection legislation was introduced, and it happened in more states than one. Please also, bear in mind there are ALOT of people in the Alaska bush that depend on moose and caribou as a food source. buying a couple pounds of extra lean when the game is depleted at the meat counter is not an option for these people. There have been wolves passing within 25 feet of the family cabin, which is unheard of in the area. Forementioned wolves were not healthy or well fed looking. (although they still did a hell of a job of disappearing in the few seconds it takes to reach into the doorway for a rifle)

The situation has improved since the state has instated a predator (wolf) control aerial hunting program, but there's still alot of damage to be undone.

I could introduce you to several families I know who have been living lean from depleted game sources as a result of wolf protection. They don't seem irrational to me?






[/QUOTE] Actually, if this were true it would be the biggest reason to allow them to thrive. There is a serious deer overpopulation problem in most areas of the US. [/QUOTE]

I guarantee you they can take care of that problem. Anyone wanting a few from Alaska is welcome to come on up and take home all they want, as far as I'm concerned!

There's still alot of groups suing the state for wolf protection, and trying to pass more initiatives. Everyone of them is based on the east coast, with many of them sending people up for petition signing that have never been here before, much less in the wild. I for one would like to see people from the lower 48 quit meddling in Alaska's way of life.

Likewise, if the people in the Northern Rockies consider the wolf population healthy enough to remove them from an endangered species list, I certainly respect thier decision, and wish them the best of luck in finding a balance, and being able to co-exist with wolves.
 
blazink said:
If there ever was an animal with an undeserved bad rep it is the Wolf. As predators they have the potential to be dangerous, and of course they prey on "our" game animals and even occasionally livestock. But anyone who thinks that wolves will deplete game animal and livestock herds is not being rational.
Click to expand...

I'll disagree with that. From http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/12/05/news/mtregional/news08.txt

A record number have been killed this year in the northern Rocky Mountains for going after cows, sheep, dogs and other domestic animals. So far, 152 wolves have been shot by government agents or private landowners, about 50 more than last year and an eight-fold increase from five years ago.

......There are at least 1,264 wolves in the three states, according to new figures provided Monday.

.....So far this year, wolves in the three states have killed 170 cows, 344 sheep, eight dogs, a horse, a mule and two llamas, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The kills - greater for sheep and cattle than any other year - are almost certainly higher than the numbers show because confirming wolf kills can be difficult.

That means about 12% of the known population were killed for attacking domestic animals. How many others made kills that weren't confirmed is anyone's guess.


blazink said:
Actually, if this were true it would be the biggest reason to allow them to thrive. There is a serious deer overpopulation problem in most areas of the US. Several hundred people are killed each year in car accidents involving deer, but I don't hear anyone proposing that we recategorize them as varmints and have an open season.
Click to expand...


That would be fine if there was a deer overpopulation problem where the wolves are.....but there isn't. We have a high percentage of hunters and lots of people from out of state that come to hunt as well. It's not the same here as it is in other states.

blazink said:
This is a complex and impassioned issue that will probably never be completely resolved. I personaly believe that there is room in the wild for wolves.
Click to expand...

I agree with that 100%. I think there's room for them, but they do need to be managed.
 
I have great sympathy for those who say they won't have predators near their children so some pudding-headed metrosexual green weenies in a big city far away can feel special about their wolf poster. If they want wolves, they can have them in their backyard.
 
BlackHills said:
......There are at least 1,264 wolves in the three states, according to new figures provided Monday.

.....So far this year, wolves in the three states have killed 170 cows, 344 sheep, eight dogs, a horse, a mule and two llamas, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The kills - greater for sheep and cattle than any other year - are almost certainly higher than the numbers show because confirming wolf kills can be difficult.[/I]
Click to expand...

... and how much livestock has been killed by disease and poor herd management. Aren't most of the livestock kill subsidized? How about government land subsidies these ranchers receive? :confused:

500 hundred head of sheep and cattle comprise what percentage of the animals in the three states?

1,300 wolves in a land mass of three large Western states? :yawn:

Yep, they should be put in check. :rolleyes:
 
Wolves are very good at controlling populations of other animals such as deer, even better than other large predators like bears and mountain lions. They're also beautiful animals and certainly deserve to be preserved; they shouldn't be shot just because they're there and trying to feed themselves and their packs. If one jumps your dog or your kid, by all means, blow it away; it's probably sick in some way already, and you'll be doing it a favor. But I don't think they should be eradicated just because someone wants a cool decoration.
 
Buffalohump said:
Well, hell yeah... now that they're off the endangered list, we can go back to blasting away at them until they're back on the endangered list...where they belong!

Dern pesky wolves, who the hell do they think they are anyway...??!!
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly... Expecially with all the wolf attacks you've been hearing about on CNN and MSNBC... Oh, wait you haven't?!*?

Well shoot them anyways just incase!
 
People have a huge misunderstanding of the wolf, they are actually quite reclusive animals who want nothing to do with humans in any shape or form. They will attack domestic sheep, cow's, or some other type of easy prey, because a slow moving dumb animal with no speed to escape, presents the easiest chance for a kill, with the least risk of possible injury to themselves.

Killing domestic livestock is much easier than killing any wild big game, and wolves are not stupid animals. There have been almost no documented and or verified attacks of a wolf on a human in history. In my opinion, if people living within wolves territory lose livestock to them, that is the price they will have to pay for raising animals without the ability to escape or defend themselves. One has to account for livestock losses if living within their territory, and learn to accept it.

Wolves are some of the most intelligent, resourceful creatures around, and I have a great deal of respect for them. I see no logical purpose or need for hunting wolves, their existence is part of the natural order of things and promotes a balanced equilibirum in nature. The fact of the matter is that it is man who has and continues to be the primary cause of the imbalance now seen in nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top