http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_re_us/us_wolf_nation
Found this article while looking at the news this morning.
I read the article on MSNBC this morning.
It just makes me shake my head. I guess there really are people in the federal government that truly live in a fantasy world.......and never listen to anyone!
Not only will there be loss of wildlife, livestock, pets and perhaps humans (a la Calif. lion pop. out of control), this is going to cost a lot of money if implemented. I know a guy who was part of the early wolf introduction in Idaho and he told me of the millions that were spent on just the first batch in the mid-1990's. There will be tons of studies, biologists, technicians, data personnel, etc. In our current economic state in this country, this is a poor idea but we have seen an unconcerned Congress continue to add to our deficit.
The worst of it, will be the damage to wildlife and ecosystem imbalances until the populations learn that a big meat eater is among them again and they try to adapt to the new game plan. Our elk (and deer to a lesser extent) have been dwindled. I have no expectation to see a population recovery while I am still on the planet.
Our state legislature ordered our Fish & Game department to solicit 20(?) other states to take our overpopulation of wolves. They found no takers - no surprise there. The result is that an increase in wolf hunting permits is coming, trapping and bait allowed and electronic calls for wolf hunting will be allowed in an effort to get an out of control wolf population to a stable number in Idaho. I hope that you guys don't have to experience a re-introduction. :mad:
I've heard that the Gray WOlf never lived in the east or South East, but rather that it was a different wolf...the Red Wolf if I remember correctly which no longer exists and was smaller and if I remember correctly more of a loner and less pack like (kind like a bigger coyote). I'll have to see if I can find where I read that and post it.
Not saying it is right, but I know a guy who "says" he is fixing the wolf problem on his own by shooting every last one he sees. I know several ranchers in wolf states that practice the same policy. You would think the Fed would have a clue and know not to put Canadian Wolves into a new environment and then try and call it reintroduction. This is classic political idiots pandering to the greenies and anit hunters who will try and use lower game animal numbers to reduce hunting opportunity.
Chop Chop,
Exactly the same issue here in Idaho. We had wolves that were smaller and were still here when the Canadian Gray's were imported. What do you suppose happened to that small population of local wolves when packs of intolerant Gray's moved in? (Not an argument - just rhetorical) I guess it was OK to wipe out a threatened population for an agenda, like Clay mentions.
When the US Fish & Wildlife held public hearings in Idaho before they brought the Gray's, a poll by another source was taken and 90% of Idahoans were opposed to the introduction. Many of us who go to the woods knew of the Idaho wolves that were here and roamed the mountains. We had foreign wolves forced upon us, anyway. If this new effort gets any traction, they will be sent to every place they deem will hold wolf populations. Man, I fear for the elk herds being re-established East of the Rockies.
I don't have a problem with wolves being introduced, provided hunting seasons for them are attached once their numbers climb to a given level. While a lot of ranchers get upset, many of them are grazing cattle on federal land (i.e. the peoples' property.) What I don't agree with is a "hands off" policy, like California has with mountain lions. In California, the cougars have gotten so bold, they will kill people as easy meals. They have no fear of humans. And we cannot have that with wolves, as we know from history how that ends up. So, introducing wolves? Fine. But without hunting seasons on them? Bad idea.
The thing that threatens wildlife more than wolves is development. People building their nice $5 million dollar McMansions smack dab in the middle of game routes and then putting up fences. Too many second and third homes go up right in the middle of the forest. There's a gated community here that sits right in the middle of the forest and the whole place is fenced. Game has to go miles around it, often across a major road.
Now, here in Northern Arizona, the elk herd itself is not native. The native elk here were wiped out long ago. These elk are introduced. So, is introducing wolves then a bad thing as they're not native? No, not since the elk themselves were introduced. But, without seasons on them, we run into problems.
All we need added to the wolf equation, is common sense.
What I find the most comical about the whole thing is the advocates of it in the anti-hunter community. It's like, let's see here. They don't want ME to kill a deer because killing a deer is wrong. But they're happy to bring in a wolf to do it. And funny how a lot of these people are into wolves and mountain lions (i.e. "They're sooooo cool!!!!") but they're vegetarians. Huh??? :dunno: When's the last time anyone saw a cougar at the salad bar?
What I find suspicious about the support for wolf reintroduction among the antis is I think it's a Trojan Horse. They realize that hunters are part of a state game and fish agency's "toolbox" for managing herd numbers. They can't get around that. So, if they have wolves in there, they'll say, "See! We fixed that! The wolves will manage the herds! Now we can ban hunting!"
My "nuts-n-bolts" of the matter concern is bringing in wolves to ecosystems that haven't sen wolves in nearly a century. They don't have the savvy to understand what wolves are. They might think it's someone's dog and they know dogs, so don't twig to the danger. I think bringing in wolves without a game plan on issuing hunting tags to, in turn, keep them under control, is asking for big problems. Once wolves lose fear of man, they learn modern man is a pretty easy-to-bring-down target of opportunity. Especially children. That's what happened in California with cougars.
Bringing in predators into an ecosystem is a dicey proposition that shouldn't be taken lightly. Peoples' free-roaming domestic cats kill more songbirds (including endangered ones) than just about any other thing. People build new housing developments on the cusp of national forests (like here in Flagstaff) and let their cats roam free in the woods, killing all kinds of birds that never saw a housecat before. These are also the people that whine the loudest about "Those hunters go through the woods behind my house---that should be against the law!" We've had letters to the paper here that say that very thing.
The point is, don't look for logic, reason, or consistancy in the wolf reintroduction programs. Especially those getting grant money. If we can't stop it, I say fine. Let's lobby for wolf season.
QuoteWhen's the last time anyone saw a cougar at the salad bar?
That is where i seem. that is how they stay so goodlookin. :goldtooth:
QuoteOriginally posted by mwmwmb:
QuoteWhen's the last time anyone saw a cougar at the salad bar?
That is where i seem. that is how they stay so goodlookin. :goldtooth: [/b]
:laughing: a good hunter that mwmwmb! Goes where the food source is for the game! Now on to the topic at hand:
The Federal judge in Missoula has once again, placed the wolves back on the protected list as of yesterday. No seasons in Idaho or Montana this Fall! He cited the US Fish & Wildlife decision to de-list in ID and MT but not Wyoming as political. He says that if it doesn't apply to all three then it voids all three for hunting. Wyoming is taking a state's rights stance on the issue of managing wolves inside their boundaries, which I believe in. I wish we had the same attitude amongst our commission. The US Fish & Wildlife could accept the WY position and the current positions of ID and MT, thus making the current ruling null. Of course, the Defenders of Wildlife and the others would file another suit that WY wolves weren't being properly managed and we would be on the see-saw, yet again. This needs to be resolved!
the thing is; that every time the hunting of the wolves is stopped; it interferes with the states right and duty to manage their wild game.
In Idaho; the fish and game duty is to insure healthy herds of fish and game animals; and the USA making the decision to only allow wolves to thrive: is interfering with elk and deer; and bear and lion and moose and mt goat; and sheep and all matter of critters made of meat - proper management.
You can never give some people enough credit for their stupidity. Defenders of Wildlife is leading well meaning people to defend one animal at the cost of all others.
It is more than a pity- it is a reason to revolt.
The federal government does not want states to enforce immigration laws; so why should our fish and game officers enforce or assist the enforcement of the courts ruling- when it makes them violate the very thing they are there to do- to insure healthy herds of game animals.
I live in wolf central; and our elk are being hammered by the wolves - and our fish and game and governor and state congressmen and senators know its hurting us financially.
This is a huge case of big brother.
However - even though Wyoming has a point; and a good one- its actions could and are ruining hunting in Idaho; Montana; Utah; with Washington and Oregon only beginning to see the tip of this iceberg.
It is wrong. Something HAS to change.
"I've heard that the Gray WOlf never lived in the east or South East, but rather that it was a different wolf...the Red Wolf if I remember correctly which no longer exists and was smaller and if I remember correctly more of a loner and less pack like (kind like a bigger coyote). I'll have to see if I can find where I read that and post it."
Well: that would be nice; but the fish and game is sitting on that information and will not release it to the public.
Even Lewis and Clark commented in their journals that the wolves in this area were smaller than the wolves they had seen in other areas.
And fish and game here was monitoring existing populations of a different wolf that was put here.
But they had an injunction against the fish and game speaking AT ALL about wolves; and the existence of wolves being here already - well it got swept away - and now denied; because they might just get their butts sued because of it.
They had the evidence of the existing smaller wolves; and now its probably shredded- and their butts are free from their cowardice in protecting their jobs over their duty.
Hunters are civil people. This whole wolf experiment proves it.
To this point.....
Hey Brian. I hope the bionic knee is doing well for you.
In a post from last year I talked about our resident wolves. I wondered how the destruction of a small population of them squares with the Endangered Species Act? Oh, that's right - I forget it is not about care of our wildlife or our state's legislated mandate that F&G perpetuate game animals for future generations. It's a federalist agenda that reigns supreme.
Be well, my friend and keep up the good fight.
Thw wolf being introduced here in Arizona is the Mexican Gray Wolf. They released them around Tucson area, but one ended up as road kill here in Northern Arizona one year. They get around. Two stepped in front of bullets down south and Game & Fish is investigating that. Probably felonies if they catch the shooters. Who knows.
Eventually, they'll attack and carry off a child, like mountain lions do fairly regularly in California. Though mountain lions in California made a small dent in the jogger population there. This is what happens with predators that lose fear of man. When I was living in Southern California, there were coyotes that would menace people living in the foothills. Nobody ever shot at them, they had no fear of people. Peoples pets would get eaten, not that I mind the free-roaming housecats disappearing. But sometimes kids would get attacked. And, of course, you know the authorities: "Let the professionals handle it, folks, don't get try to take the matter into your own hands..." No, how about people take a good longbow into their own hands? That'll stop the problem while the authorities do various time studies and written assessments (with footnotes) of the situation.
If a mountain lion shadows people in this state, people are getting up a hunting party the next day. But you can't say that for the wolves here. I think the procedure here is to file a written report or a complaint or something. I'm not sure how you get the wolf to file a report telling his side of the story.
Funny thing.....they want to introduce the grey to Oregon.....and have even had a tracking of on of the Idaho dogs in the NE corner.....I know of people who have shot wolves all over the state.....not sure of the breed, but definitely not a coyote. I read a story about a guy who lost all but two of his hunting pack to wolves because he was not allowed to shoot the wolves to defend his dogs. LAME!!!! What ever happened to common sense?
We had a guy here breeding wolf-dog hybrids to sell. They got out and killed a bunch of his neighbors' animals. Folks ended up having to get up a hunting party to kill the wolf-dogs. It's not bad enough introducing wolves with no checks-and-balances, but now we've got people breeding wolf hybrids---to sell as pets. Yeah, can't you see it? Someone's kid sees the doggie, goes to pet him, and gets an arm torn off. Great idea! Sorry, but half-wolf is still half-wild.
thorn242: Oregon already has at least one collared female wolf in a pack. They breed at 30% per year..
If we were to follow the logic proposed by these state biologists, the entire continent should be returned to the animals. After all, even Native Americans intruded upon the original flora and fauna in North America. If they saw a survival advantage, they were notorious slaughterers and destroyers habitat.
This is a typical Leftist argument that sounds plausible at first blush and then appears foolish when examined more closely.
These are the same approaches used by the left on any number of issues.
Whatever is "wrong" with the world, it MUST be something white, civilized American males did. In fact, if they were absolutely honest, they would admit to their belief humans are a pestilence on the face of the Earth and should be regulated out of existence.
However, they always leave a little room for the continued habitation of the State Biologists...just to make sure things go "right".
"Whatever is "wrong" with the world, it MUST be something white, civilized American males did."
Um, "civilized"? My Tsalagi ancestors were civilized long before "white civilized" Europeans got here. Civilization isn't just tenements in 1880s New York City with a typhoid epidemic running amok, ya know. And, yes, got paternal ancestors that lived in those tenements, too.
Look, I'm not saying Native Americans were all saints. But we weren't sitting around waiting to be "civilized" by Europeans, either.
maybe when kids start getting attacked people will realize wolves are not the nice little dogs they think they are.
I have heard people have already been attacked, but can't remember where.
About ten years ago, my wife and I were touring Wyoming and of course, we wandered into the Cowboy Bar in Jackson Hole. In the very back of the building was a large glass case with what I thought was a joke mount of a black phase Grey Wolf.
It was in fact true life and about six feet long from nose to tail tip. He stood at least four feet at the shoulder and there was a plaque and photograph describing the killing of this animal after it had single-handedly brought down an adult bull moose. The photo showed the wolf grabbing the moose by the muzzle. The wolf was almost as long as the moose.
An adult bull moose can easily run 1300 pounds.
I can tell you photographs do NO justice to these apex predators.
Can you imagine a pack of the guys roaming the Denver area?
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/daryl-hunter/2159812066/) Grey and Black Wolf Yellowstone (http://www.flickr.com/photos/daryl-hunter/2159812066/)
Do you guys remember Jurassic Park 2?......great line in that movie.....ooo....aah...that's how it always starts.....then later, there is running and screaming.....
some keep saying that it will take a wolf attacking a child or something like that for them to see the problem....I for one hope that THAT never, ever happens.....but they are probably right
British Columbia, and Alberta have healthy populations of wolves. (The "Yellowstone" wolves were introduced from Alberta stock) :scared:
So, there CAN"T be any game left here, in Canada. :saywhat:
Please refer to the following link for further information.
It states adult males reach lengths in excess of six (6) feet. I was NOT exaggerating the length or height of the animal I saw; however, I would have estimated the weight much higher than 80 pounds.
Furthermore, the study states:
Food Habits
Gray Wolves are opportunistic carnivores that predominantly prey on large ungulates. Main prey items in Montana include deer, Elk, and Moose (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2003). Bison are also taken where the ranges of the two species overlap in and around Yellowstone National Park. Domestic livestock such as cattle and sheep are also preyed upon. Gray Wolves may also eat alternative prey, such as rodents, vegetation and carrion. Gray Wolves commonly hunt in packs, but lone animals and pairs are able to kill prey as large as adult Moose (my emphasis...KL) (Thurber and Peterson 1993).
http://fieldguide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJA01030.aspx
I never said "as long as a full grown moose".
What I said was: "The wolf was almost as long as the moose."
When viewed from the photographer's perspective.
I can only ask why are Idaho, Montana and Wyoming now having licensed wolf hunting so sort a time after re-introduction. The state biologists admit the game numbers have decreased within the hunt areas. They are not so concerned with the decrease in ungulates. They are primarily worried that the lack of big game tag fee sales will hurt their departmental budgets.
I would also point out the Glacier National Park packs were not transplanted by man but arrived without green cards from Canada.
Yours are the same arguments for banning the use of dogs for hunting cougar. The sad fact remains people encroach upon wildlife areas and are mauled and killed by wildlife on a regular basis. I live in the foothills of the Cascade Mountain Range in Western Washington and the sightings of cougar in neighborhoods have increased exponentially in the short years since the dog ban. It will only take little time before we are right up there with California on shows like "I Survived".
The very nature and function of a "herd" is a survival strategy for protection from large predators. The large game herds of the West were in the plains primarily to defend against the attacks of wolves and bears. It was not until White Man arrived and began shooting indiscriminately that those herds on the open plains disappeared. The modern result is the elk is now referred to as the "Rocky Mountain Elk" where that habitat was not its normal range prior to the advent of the firearm in North America and Bison are kept behind electric fences.
I saw what I saw and I was not under the influence.
Well, I tend to think building McMansions in wilderness areas needs to stop. Not only does it push wildlife out, but it also has the consequence of reducing areas you can hunt in. No sooner does someone here plop their McMansion right in the middle of the forest here, then up go the "No Hunting" signs all over the perimeter.
10-4 on the McMansions in the wilderness.
K
Konrad,
"yours are the same arguments for banning the use of dogs for hunting cougar"
Where, pray tell, did I ask/refer/demand to ban ANYTHING?
Don't add to my statements what you "think" you read.
I do support hunting seasons on wolf, cougar, coyote, etc. If the species in question is doing harm to habitat, herds, etc. Then it needs to be controlled.
Hunting and trapping are effective ways of controlling numbers, same as we use for ungulate herds.
My point is that while I can see the wolf impacting herd numbers, if the situation in Montana, Idaho, etc. is so bad, why has Canada not experienced such problems?
Canada has a large number of wolves-lots of them. And we also have seasons for hunting and trapping them.To control their numbers.
That being said, our elk, moose and deer populations are healthy, for the most part.
I am neither pro, nor anti wolf. A wolf is just another predator, not something innately evil.
Our herds face a more sinister threat, and that is loss of habitat, and human encroachment into critical wintering ranges, etc. (McMansions, etc.)
Should you happen to arrow a wolf during an open season, I would congratulate you on a fine kill.
Wolves aren't easy to get close to.
One other thing, my friend, from SE British Columbia, traps wolves all season long, and is damned good at it, to boot.
He says he has made a very small impact on wolf numbers in the areas that border his trap line.
Well where does all the madness stop. I've just read though post after post. I agree with most all of them. But the fly in the buttermilk of all this is we all have to become more politically active local,state,and national. The people that we elect on all levels are the one appointing these do nothing Fish and Game officals,judges and lets not forget the feds,there stupid antics like filing this petition. Voter file petitions NOT some form of government. Basicly it comes down to this. The Far left on all levels have beat us at the polls and our way of life is suffering because of it. Its been said many time before, where going to have to
RW: let me explain.
First off we had wolves in Idaho BEFORE the 'reintroduction'. The wolves were smaller; and even Lewis and Clark noted that in their journals when they came through the area.
What is happening here- that might not be happening there where you are: might be due to habitat and terrain.
Here where I am - which is an area heavily hit by wolves - it is steep country.
The bull elk stay together in the winter up higher in elevation than the cow elk.
The wolves can run for miles to find elk; which they then run uphill into ravines full of snow.
The elk get bogged down in the snow; and the wolves kill all the animals they can.
I do not know what your topography is where you are; but here- the very steep cliffs also have mountain goats and bighorn sheep on them.(although where I used to see a dozen goats I see none now).
Wolves do circle people; and attack - but this might not be reflected as you might 'think' it should.
That is because we carry guns; and kill the wolves when they circle us; or go after our dogs while hunting or walking in the wild.
I have lived in this part of the state since 2002; and places where I could go see lots of deer and elk are now silent. You do not see tracks on the roads; or on the trails; where before letting out an elk bugle would get dozens of bulls returning bugles.
The moose up the road from me; that used to be all over- are gone. Now the guy that has a bunch of ranches for sale: using the moose as a buyer attractant- alternately denies wolves kill anything at all; and saying the wolves have killed all the moose there.
Nobody here sees moose there anymore.
Bears are seen with one foot or leg gone; and it is a fact that wolves DO pull bears from their dens in winter and kill and eat them.
Our dwindling elk numbers are obvious to the guys and gals that have hunted here for generations. They are more and more complaining about the lack of elk; elk sign; and the increased sightings of wolves.
Almost half the available non-resident elk tags and deer tags (which are normally sold out by the end of March) are still available.
You can laugh about what the wolves are or are not doing here- based on what you see there: but it is obvious here that wolves are making a huge impact on the elk and deer and all game that is assessable to the wolves.
Come here and laugh about a hound hunter for lions- losing 6 hounds to wolves; and you might just bring out the bad in the good.
I think your comparing apples to oranges- because our elk and deer here are getting pounded hard ( year around) - and I personally have lost a pack animal to wolves.
Outfitters USED to take a mare with them on pack trips; and use geldings for riding and packing. You put a bell on the mare - and the geldings stay with her; and you can find your horses by listening for the bell.
Not anymore! Even horses kept in corrals are in trouble.
We as hunters have not done our part for conservation ( which is the wise use of our natural resources). Our fish and game departments quake in fear of bad press- and do more to satisfy anti-hunters than hunters. Its costing them money and they are starting to realize what a mistake not going down kicking and screaming was.
It was not the 'left' that did this- it was an effort by wolf cuddle people of the far right and left.
By the way - the lion hunters are seeing skinny starving lions. The wolves take their kills from them.
This is a big mess - and to make fun of it: is very insulting.
Mr Krebs,
British Columbia borders Idaho, I believe that wolves routinely cross the border. Both ways. And the same goes for Montana, and Alberta.
If these "BC/Alberta" wolves are so different, why do we not see the same problem here, in Canada?
South Eastern British Columbia has Mountain sheep, Mountain goats, black and grizzly bear, cougars, lynx, bobcat, wolverine, elk, moose, WT, and Mule Deer. AND wolves! Lots of them. same goes for South Western Alberta.
Mr. Krebs, I have never witnessed a wolf running up a slide, in deep snow. I have seen them struggling to cross these same ravines, in deep snow.
What I have seen, and witnessed the end result of, is wolves running down the snowmobile trails, and killing deer, elk and moose that they come acrost.
I have never heard of a bear being attacked and eaten in its den, by wolves, but that is a possibility.
About the wolves "circling and attacking" people, well, up here, you DON'T carry a handgun. Period. And no one has been killed by a wolf, yet, in SE British Columbia.
Having lived for years in the Elk Valley, and having hunted and fished in the Flathead Valley a lot, I have NEVER been circled by, nor attacked by wolves. And I have never heard of ANYONE in this area being threatened or attacked by a wolf.
All the wolf kills I have happened on in the Elk Valley, and Flathead Valley have been single kills, not multiple kills.
If you happen to take my statement as an "insult," well, you are entitled to your opinion of my statement.
Another person made the claim that I wanted to "ban" hound hunting or something to that end.
I am not against hunting wolves, coyotes, cougars, etc, if their numbers either need curtailing, or can sustain hunting pressure.
Same for grizzly bears. I AM NOT some PETA anti-hunter.
But neither am I a wolf hater.
What I actually said was:
Yours are the same arguments for banning the use of dogs for hunting cougar. The sad fact remains people encroach upon wildlife areas and are mauled and killed by wildlife on a regular basis. I live in the foothills of the Cascade Mountain Range in Western Washington and the sightings of cougar in neighborhoods have increased exponentially in the short years since the dog ban. It will only take little time before we are right up there with California on shows like "I Survived".
I never suggested that you personally were for the banning of dogs on lion hunts.
Conversely, I must tell you that I take exception to your suggestion that I am a "Wolf Hater". I am most decidedly NOT a "Wolf Hater". I just have a perspective on the reality of the ground situation here.
Perhaps your local has been blessed and will never see a negative impact from wolf predation. I hope so.
Perhaps your local has not been cursed with the ultra-liberal mentality that currently runs amok in Washington and other Western States. I hope it never happens to your home land.
All I can tell you is: When the proverbial cat is out of the bag, it is difficult to catch a second time.
When the State and Federal Wildlife biologists were siding with the animal rights/conservation groups, their word was as from On High. Now, when the same group of biologists determines wolf hunting is in order, they have become the minions of Satan.
There is room in the West for all species of animal. The current population expansion in the United States requires control over all of those species. Ultimately, we must govern our wildlife as captive as they most certainly are...captive.
We can no more allow wolves to run uncontrolled any more than we should allow politicians the same access. When given free license, they both become dangerous.
Konrad said:
"Ultimately, we must govern our wildlife as captive as they most certainly are...captive."
Ummm...actually, they're not captive. Take for example the smallest of wildlife: The microbes, viruses, and bacteria. E. Coli 0157;H7 runs amok and kills people with impunity. Most viruses cannot be defeated by humans. They kill as they please. They go where they like and do as they please and replicate themselves as they see fit. Bacteria are living beings and cannot be controlled or, "governed", as you say. Oh, we invent cures, but then the bacteria adapt and overcome and become more virulent than before. Kind of like our antibiotics are becoming less effective and, soon, won't be effective at all. Viruses are a law unto themselves. Seems we're not as all-powerful as we think we are. The smallest beings are, ultimately, the ones that kick our keesters.
We're not as important on this planet as we think we are. If the human race perished en masse tomorrow, the planet would go on merrily without us. And, honestly, I wouldn't want to live in a world where every living being is captive. Sounds like a nightmare to me.
RW - I can assure you that the wolves here make multiple kills- especially on the adult bull elk that are up high in elevation; and can be easily forced into ravines of snow.
I have seen it; and the bones are still bleaching the sun here for you to see.
And the proof of the impact of the wolves is not denied by biologists anymore; they admit it; and are trying to work around the court decision that stopped us from hunting elk.
That decision in no way indicated or implied that there was not a problem with the wolf population being to high or low- it just slapped Wyoming for not getting on the boat and doing what it demands they do.
In fact the anti-hunters that promised to pay ranchers for losses due to wolves are now saying they cannot afford to do it anymore.
The lack of tag sales; the lack of game; the data; the proof - you sir have to ignore all that: to satisfy your argument.
I started noting the effect on bears; so I contacted the fish and game in Alaska; and asked about wolf predation on bears.
They have proof that wolves do prey heavily on denned bears in the winter.
If you want to argue with that idea- then first convince the Alaska biologists that their studies are wrong.
I do find it really interesting that you have noticed the use of snowmobile trails by wolves to find and then pursue game from. I have seen this too- but was not sure if it was just what I was seeing or if there was any support from others seeing it. I have noticed it with roads too.
Something I do not know is if you in British Columbia can shoot wolves? See here- if a wolf kills your dog on a chain - you cannot shoot it.
If you go for a walk and wolves come after your dog or you- the fish and game says that the wolves are just in all probability 'defending their dens'.
Well- I know that any canine will repeat a behavior that is rewarding. For a decade- we were told to back away from such situations- or face a $5000 fine and loss of hunting privileges in not only Idaho - but dozens of other states.
Now if you up there can shoot off your rifle to scare off a wolf; and have been doing that for say a hundred years- how can you compare your situation with ours?
Tsalagi: the wolves they imported- imported a new tapeworm to our game animals. It does not form into a tapeworm in humans or elk or deer; but forms cysts that if a wolf eats - completes its life cycle. But in humans- you either have to get the cysts removed by surgery ( break the sack they are in and the patient has a high percent chance of going into shock and dying) or you can try chemotherapy. Or die.
That is a huge lump under the carpet of wolf reintroduction.
As far as captive viruses - well in Africa if someone is known to have hemorrhagic fever etc- the Africans surround their hut. They kill anyone that tries to escape; and after a time- if someone in the hut survives-- they let them go.
That is a captive virus.
Our whimpy ways of dealing with virus' has promoted their survival.
I agree that the smallest things have the greatest chance of survival... ask a dinosaur !
I have a few concerns about wolf reintroduction.
First, was that particular species native to the region? If not, you're introducing an alien species that the native wildlife are not equipped to deal with. I'm against people who live in urban/wilderness interface letting their cats roam free for this reason. Interesting sidenote: You'll find that a number of anti-hunters let their cats roam free and kill endangered songbirds. And when you bring this to their attention, they always get indignant and say, "Well, MY cat needs to roam free!" Yeah, well I need to hunt, so how do you like them apples, Mary Poppins?
Second, how much time lapsed between the disappearance of the wolf and reintroduction? It isn't always good to bring back the species if other animals are unprepared or equipped to deal with them. Take for example humans. There are places people thrived a long time ago. Like the Sahara Desert, which was once a huge grassland. But does that mean we settle a bunch of people there now? Of course not. Ecosystems change and bringing back a species isn't always the greatest thing to do. The lesson is not to wipe out species. That's the take-away lesson we need to learn. Not to think that if we wipe something out, we can always captive breed them and restock the place like a catfish pond.
Third, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should---no matter how good it makes us feel. I tend to think a lot of wolf reintroduction comes about as some kind of guilt trip over having wiped that out. Ok, fine. Guilt is good if you learn from it. But you can't always make everything all better. Ok, the Wooly Mammoth. It's theorized they were hunted to extinction in North America quite a long time ago. So, we have the technology to possibly clone them and bring them back. A big maybe, but it might be possible. Do we do that? What are they going to eat? What are the unintended consequences of that action? How does it impact the other wildlife?
Things are never as simple as "Let's do it over..." Or "Let's turn back the clock XX number of years..." Things change in that meantime and things are not the same as they were in that previous time. We're still not learning the lesson about wiping out species for our own gain. Take for example the Pacific Yew. That tree was almost totally wiped out very recently in the quest for the drug Taxol. Bringing back wolves doesn't change the attitude of "If it makes me rich, I'll wipe several species off the face of the Earth." The lesson is to stop doing that, not let it continue merrily along and think you can go back after-the-fact and make everything all better by reintroducing species that probably weren't native in the first place.
We can hunt wolves in BC. We can and do trap them too.
Certain areas of Alberta are the same.
If a wolf attacked my dog, while it was chained up, I would shoot the wolf-damn the consequences.
I am NOT against the hunting, or trapping of wolves. This I say again, as some people seem to think that I am arguing against a wolf hunt/cull.
Never heard about this tape worm, and its cysts. Do you have any info on that (a name or something like that?) parasite?
The wolves preying on bears in their dens. I did not say that it didn't happen, I said "I have never heard of" wolves preying on hibernating bears.
As to the "imported wolves."
Given another 20-25 years, what would have stopped wolves in the East Kootenays, and Okanogan areas, from crossing into Idaho/Montana?
As far a I understand, wild animals don't pay any attention to international borders, and wolves can and do follow prey species.
FWIW, elk that where tagged in the Sparwood area of the East Kootenays where found to travel as far south as the Yellowstone area.
So, the wolves from the Elk Valley may well follow these same elk to the Yellowstone.
Even if the State governments hadn't brought in wolves from Alberta, the packs that frequent the Canadian/USA border area would have probably moved into these areas, given a few more years.
And, as I have said before, if wolves are impacting ungulate herds, and the numbers are too high, then I fully support a season for wolf, and a trapping season also.
My main point is, why are there so many "problems" with wolves in Idaho, Montana etc, and British Columbia and Alberta have little, if any problems with our wolf population?
Our "territories" are extremely similar, habitat wise, and Canada has no special "treaty" with the wolf genus, that precludes the wolf from killing "Canadian" game animals.
With areas in question being separated by, in most cases, only a few hundred miles, I can't see why there is such a disparity in the impact the wolves are having on game populations.
Gentleman,the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation has ask congress to review and reform in Endangered species act. This is because of the ruled of the Liberal judge in MT in Aug re-listing the grey wolf. Please contact your congressman and encourage him or her to support this reform. The main thing is to keep this pressure on. Its an election year!! This has got to change.
QUESTION : "My main point is, why are there so many "problems" with wolves in Idaho, Montana etc, and British Columbia and Alberta have little, if any problems with our wolf population?"
ANSWER:"We can hunt wolves in BC. We can and do trap them too.
Certain areas of Alberta are the same."
If a wolf attacked my dog, while it was chained up, I would shoot the wolf-damn the consequences.
The consequence for over a decade here would have been suspension of your hunting license for up to life for over a dozen states; and as well- a $5000 fine.
Once you see the feds treating shooting a wolf as if it were an elected official - then you understand they are serious.
I can email you the attachments on the tapeworm - email me with an email address...
Given another 20-25 years, what would have stopped wolves in the East Kootenays, and Okanogan areas, from crossing into Idaho/Montana?
Answer : Bullets. The same thing that has kept then from spreading into new areas until the fed got involved. Lots of Okanogan country in Washington and very few if any wolves.
Lots of folks I know kill them on sight. Enough people do it and the problem goes away. Simple solution to a complex problem.
Before all the bashing starts. I know the bashers speed, talk on the phone and drive at the same time, etc... etc.....
Any Wolf that threatens me or mine including my pets is going to get a sharp stick or a 2,400 fps pill to catch the hard way. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their livestock including pet dog and cats. At least in my state they do.
Would your pill selection be .223, .284, .308 or bigger?
If I could only get close enough for the "sharp stick" method...
I prefer a .243 for coyotes should work well on larger canines as well.
Oops!
I forgot the venerable .243.
Good choice.
K