Wolves in America?

[Belmont31R]

Watched this today ( http://cryingwolfmovie.com/ ) and Ive read many articles previously about what has happened with the reintroduction of wolves into the Yellowstone area.



Basically when the wolves were supposed to be reintroduced into Yellowstone they were supposed to be contained to around 100 adults. Since they have exploded to almost 2000 in the lower 48 with packs FAR outside the park. They have been seen in E WA, N CO, ID, MT, WI, SD and many other areas.


Herds of elk have been reduced by 70% from just 15 years ago. Lots of people out of business like guides, ect. Instead of containing these animals they got some Federal court judges to keep protecting these animals.


For those that don't know from pre-1900 to the 50's there was an extensive campaign to get rid of these animals. Like it or not they are incompatible to ranching and maintaining healthy herd numbers. Also for those that don't know humans have been the the best thing that ever happened to wild life in North America. We have cut down enough trees and planted enough quality crops we have deer numbers, from what Ive read, that are FAR greater than when it was only the indians (as far as humans go) in NA. Buffalo not so much but other animals like deer and elk are far more numerous now. Through game management we have basically eliminated the boom and bust cycle of population numbers, and as mentioned with clearing land for agriculture provided many species with food sources that are far more nutritional than they had with out.


Anyways the reintroduction of the wolf was basically forced on the states and locals, and herd populations of game animals are WAY down not to mention the ranchers and farmers having to deal with many losses of stock. Wolves will kill for fun and they do not eat everything they kill. Interesting in the video they mention that wolves are not even native to Yellowstone because its high country, and wolves do not live in high country because of the extreme climate, mountains, ect. They prefer lowland which is flat and is better for hunting. Its also better for ranching which is why the wolves have spread out from the high country where they were introduced down into the low country where all the farming and ranching take place.


While I personally think wolves are awesome predators I don't think they have a place in the lower 48, and what has happened to game animals where they exist is a travesty that even if "fixed" TODAY would require decades of repair to have any semblance of normalcy. The herd numbers are so low it should be criminal what was done, and the inaction on the Feds that continues to this day.


And right on the NPS website is data to back this up:



Wildlife biologists say increased predation, ongoing drought, and hunting pressure all contributed to a decline in the northern Yellowstone elk population from 1995 to 2010.

The annual aerial survey of the herd conducted during December 2010 resulted in a count of 4,635 elk, down 24 percent from the 6,070 reported the previous year. There has been about a 70 percent drop in the size of the northern elk herd from the 16,791 elk counted in 1995 and the start of wolf restoration to Yellowstone National Park.

Predation by wolves and grizzly bears is cited as the major reason for the decline in elk numbers. Wolves in northern Yellowstone prey primarily on elk. Also, predation on newborn elk calves by grizzly bears may limit the elk population’s ability to recover from these losses.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/11005.htm


In just 15 years since the introduction of wolves in the park there has been a 70 percent drop in elk numbers.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Two wolves, an Elk, a judge, rancher and judicial activism. There is a good joke in there somewhere. Maybe if the Elk had a New York lawyer.

[ALCOAR]

First off, props for laying out your position as nicely as you did Belmont.

With that said, I'm rooting like a sonabitch for the Wolves...humans are incredibly destructive and will ultimately kill the entire earth off and every single living thing on it. Humans generally have little to no respect for those that came before them or those lower on the food chain than them...least we not forget that the Grey Wolf was well established in North America by the time the first Native American and Inuit Peoples came across the Beringia, roughly eighteen thousand years ago.

I have no sympathy for ranchers or any other human who is inconvenienced by the presence of an animal that was here long before them. The only reason why we have anything left in the country is because of Teddy Roosevelt and the creation of National Parks.


"Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us."

-Teddy Roosevelt

"And to lose the chance to see frigatebirds soaring in circles above the storm, or a file of pelicans winging their way homeward across the crimson afterglow of the sunset, or a myriad terns flashing in the bright light of midday as they hover in a shifting maze above the beach -- why, the loss is like the loss of a gallery of the masterpieces of the artists of old time."

-Teddy Roosevelt

"it is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and exterminate fishes, birds and mammals -- not to speak of vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. But at last it looks as if our people were awakening."

-Teddy Roosevelt

Apparently Teddy spoke to soon:rolleyes:

[SteyrAUG]

First off, props for laying out your position as nicely as you did Belmont.

With that said, I'm rooting like a sonabitch for the Wolves...humans are incredibly destructive and will ultimately kill the entire earth off and every single living thing on it. Humans generally have little to no respect for those that came before them or those lower on the food chain than them...least we not forget that the Grey Wolf was well established in North America by the time the first Native American and Inuit Peoples came across the Beringia, roughly eighteen thousand years ago.

I have no sympathy for ranchers or any other human who is inconvenienced by the presence of an animal that was here long before them. The only reason why we have anything left in the country is because of Teddy Roosevelt and the creation of National Parks.


And for MILLIONS of years Dinosaurs kept mammals at the level of small rodents as the dominant predator on Earth without ANY respect for any other life form.

Conservation, civilization and consideration are all HUMAN inventions. Nature is not human hearted and for a time we struggled with wolves for our very existence. They were a competing predator (along with other capable mammals) and eventually we won.

We rely on crops of domesticated animals to sustain our civilization. Wolves, cool as they might be, are a threat to that so we eliminate the threat for the same reason you kill rattlesnakes where your children play.

And when the day comes that man is no more, the next species will step up and take control as the dominant predator on the planet. And I doubt very much if that species will mourn the passing of man or give any consideration to the other species it preys upon.

If you want to resent a species, resent viruses. They kill their own host for no reason at all.

[Belmont31R]

Trident-


While I agree humans have been and can be very destructive the answer to this issue is not broad sweeping statements and generalizations. Not to mention humans have been part of ecosystem for at least tens of thousands of years. Its not as if humans showed up on the planet one day, and killed off half the living species. As humans have expanded out other species have taken 2nd place just as other animals have done so to other species. There used to be saber tooth cats in NA, too.

Basically I do not think we need to huddle in big cities with the rest of the land reserved for wild life. We have just a much of a right to be in these areas as anything else, and since we have supeior intellect and brain power we have proven to be the dominant species in most areas if we so choose to be. Its a natural evolution of life.

Now if you look at what happened here the government put together a panel which came up with models wherein they came to the conclusion Yellowstone NP could handle up to 100 adult wolves without impacting the elk herds numbers. When this was all proposed no one said anything about allowing the wolves to spread outside the park and get into the thousands. The ranchers around the park certainly did not agree to it, and all of the surrounding states passed resolutions against releasing the wolves.

If you watched the video you would also note they said wolves are not really even indigenous to the park in large numbers because the park is high country which is not where wolves traditionally inhabit. High country has very harsh winters, mountains, and is not good hunting grounds for wolves. As the wolves increased in population they spread outside the park which has a lot of low country, and that is where the ranchers are. None of these people wanted the wolves, and now they are dealing with losing 30%+ of their herd annually to wolf kills. No rancher can sustain that level of loss. Also part of the video talks about how the cattle who do make are often underweight due to the stress of having wolves around. If they lose 25lbs of meat per head of cattle due to stress @1/lb x 500 head of herd they are losing tens of thousands of dollars every year.

In the video there are 4th generation ranchers who have been working the same land as their great grand parents, and now they are at risk of losing their way of life because a bunch of greenies from other parts of the country thought they should have wolves there. The people who pushed this are also of the same type who believe the human population needs to be drastically reduced. That means you, too.

And I guarantee you some animal inhabited the land you live on right now before you showed up. Its impossible for humans to coexist with the animal world without impacting them in some capacity be it displacement, substance hunting, ect. Its been that way since humans were primal creatures creating the first tools to figure out how to kill all those animals around them. If you don't think those ranchers should work that land free of predators what do you do if you have a dangerous animal in your yard? Let rattlers in your house free will because they were there first? Like it or not we need land for a sustainable future that is free of threats, and humans have been eliminating threats for tens of thousands of years. We even kill each other over land rights and perceived or realized threats by other humans.


I am an animal lover and really do love the outdoors. Im not one for "killing them all" but also realize, simply, that we have to balance ourselves against nature. We don't need to be harming ourselves because before our great great grand pappy got here there used to be some wolves around. There are still lots of wolves in North America, and now our elk herds which I consider a national treasure are at risk of being wiped out which is just as great as a travesty as the market farming that happened in the later part of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th. You're right in that TR really helped turn this nation into a conservation nation and not continuing down the path we were on. The first national park was Yellowstone, and now the animals there are being destroyed due to human activity of introducing wolves with little to no controls on them. Read the quote I posted above about a 70% reduction in herd numbers in 15 years since the introduction.


Lastly...I do believe TR did some wolf hunting of his own. ;)

[montanadave]

I'm rootin' for the honey badgers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

[obucina]

my father and grandfather were career ag men, I grew up with a healthy respect for the environment and ecosystem. My father was also a sportsman, he used to talk about one day retiring to Montana or Wyoming, its quite a beautiful country. As for the wolf issue, it seems like a canine version of NAFTA. Just from the numbers, introducing a non native predator is foolish. While I have no problem with the National Park System, I was just fishing off ENP on friday, the bureaucratic entity needs to be put in check. They are creating a new endangered species purely out of activism. But, in the end, we are supporting a nation of 319 million and rising, continually reduced cattle numbers do not help the matter, they will only push more reliance upon the country with whom our newly minted populous is intimately tied to.

[ALCOAR]

We rely on crops of domesticated animals to sustain our civilization. Wolves, cool as they might be, are a threat to that so we eliminate the threat for the same reason you kill rattlesnakes where your children play.



"Rattlesnakes are only too plentiful everywhere; along the river bottoms, in the broken, hilly ground, and on the prairies and the great desert wastes alike...If it can it will get out of the way, and only coils up in its attitude of defence when it believes that it is actually menaced."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Belmont...I know better than to engage in a debate with you as you are extremely well versed in the art of debating and generally I agree with everything you have to say on M4C. I will admit that I have seen several programs in the past on this exact issue but didn't watch the actual one you linked. I will also admit that I was a big fan of Wolves growing up, and have always been somewhat leery of Mankind's encroachment upon Nature and the living organisms that make it up. I do believe this is a great GD thread, and while I have my position pretty well cemented, I can see the other point of view even though I don't agree with it:)

[SteyrAUG]

"Rattlesnakes are only too plentiful everywhere; along the river bottoms, in the broken, hilly ground, and on the prairies and the great desert wastes alike...If it can it will get out of the way, and only coils up in its attitude of defence when it believes that it is actually menaced."

- Teddy Roosevelt

Perhaps you missed a bit of my point.

It's wasn't that wolves are as plentiful as rattlesnakes, they aren't. My point was that we control their populations for the same reason. Additionally, I'm not talking about going out in the woods and trying to wipe out all rattlesnakes. Only those who pose a risk by proximity to populated areas, like where your kids might play.

I personally think wolves are pretty fricken cool. Just not cool enough to risk the domesticated livestock we depend on for "our" survival or to put populated areas at undue risk.

It is one thing to go live among them and deal with them in close proximity. It is another to have wolf tracks across your porch where your children play. If it came down to simply protecting my dogs from attack, I'd kill a wolf.

That said, there should be, and are, areas where they are protected. I think conservation of most species is an important "human" endeavor. There are very few life forms I'd be in favor of completely eradicating, and they tend to be things like viruses.

[SteyrAUG]

Mankind's encroachment upon Nature and the living organisms that make it up.

Why do you assume these other species are more entitled to a habitat than man? If any species in nature was capable of displacing us, they would. Nearly every species capable of displacing another species will do so. This is because nearly every species lacks the higher thought processes for things like reason, consideration and compassion.

In nature, a species will hunt another species into extinction IF they are capable of doing so. Wolves will even kill other wolves over things like territory.

[Honu]

Humans are part of the equation in my book good and bad ? they are just another animal in the most base sense of things
while we are on top with tools without tools we are near the bottom
with our minds we can be near the top yet our minds can also put us on the bottom quickly again nature we are part of the whole picture
yes its more complex than that but the basic idea :)

I laugh at the ones that think they are greater smarter than nature itself and think they can balance things !!!

while man is responsible for some things killing off species etc.. thats a drop in the bucket ! nature is very very good at balancing itself and when man comes in and decides I can do it better is when things get really screwed up !!!!

[Dave_M]

This culling and then re-stocking (and about every time we do it we **** it up terribly) is based upon the concept of, 'balance of nature'; something which has never existed in nature.

[montanadave]

I was in favor of reintroducing the wolves into Yellowstone. Still am. The wildlife herds within the park had become overpopulated, were riddled with disease, and frequently saw large numbers succumb to starvation during the winter months.

But, as per usual, the powers that be overshot the mark and failed to take into account all of those "unforeseen consequences" that invariably accompany any grand scheme. And now the states most affected by the issue are working towards solutions to provide some balance. It's going to work out in the end; it just takes some time.

Unfortunately, the reintroduction of wolves has become another "hot button" issue manipulated by various special interest groups to fire up their respective political bases. And I'm not gonna go there.

Suffice it to say, the wolves are a frequent topic of conversation around this neck of the woods and everyone has an opinion, albeit generally ill-informed. The livestock losses are overblown and the ranchers affected receive compensation. But the number of wolves has to be controlled and this can be accomplished through proper issuance of hunting permits. But it's a new situation and it's taking time for everyone to get a handle on it. There's no need to panic and those looking to score political capital by ginning up controversy need to back off and let cooler heads address the issue.

[Belmont31R]

The ranchers in the video talked about the compensation and said they don't want it. They want to be ranchers not yet another beneficiary of some program paid for with tax dollars.



As far as the herd numbers in the park its my understanding there were concerns about over feeding, soil erosion, and disease but much of those fears were unfounded. At any rate using wolves to lower the herd numbers would be ill conceived because wolves do not traditionally inhabit the area of the park in large numbers. I looked up the numbers on how many wolves were killed off and it wasn't that many if you consider until the last ones were killed they were still breeding. If you also remember part of the reasoning for introducing the wolves was that they would not have a large impact on the herds. So it doesn't make much sense to say elk numbers need to be reduced when the impact study reports they did said their numbers would not be impacted that much.

[montanadave]

The ranchers in the video talked about the compensation and said they don't want it. They want to be ranchers not yet another beneficiary of some program paid for with tax dollars.


I'm curious as to how many of these ranchers also graze their cattle on forest service or BLM lands for minimal fees which are, for all intents and purposes, a federal subsidy.

If you want to politicize the issue within the artificial context of the big, bad government, in collusion with a bunch of dirty hippies and "East Coast elites," stepping on the neck of some "Marlboro Man" stereotype of the American rancher, feel free, but I'm not gonna play. I've lived here all my life and, as always, the reality is not quite so clearly defined.

But it's your thread, your ax. Grind away.

[Belmont31R]

Politicize the issue? The closest I said anything about that was "greenies from other parts of the country." But ok...if you didn't want to talk about it you should have found another thread to post in not mucking up an important issue pointing fingers....:confused:

[montanadave]

Politicize the issue? The closest I said anything about that was "greenies from other parts of the country." But ok...if you didn't want to talk about it you should have found another thread to post in not mucking up an important issue pointing fingers....:confused:

Don't be disingenuous. I've been reading your posts in the GD forum for years and they rarely, if ever, lack a political context.

As I stated earlier, the states most impacted by the rising wolf populations are taking steps to address the issue. Both Montana and Idaho have authorized wolf hunting and, despite the predictable opposition by environmental groups, even that bastion of liberal ideology, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, recently denied an injunction sought to halt permitted hunters from taking wolves. (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_b1aeea4d-bd7a-5642-8152-4d811b053c09.html).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that wolf populations in Idaho and Montana recovered back in 2009 and turned management of the wolves back to the states, whose respective wildlife management agencies quickly implemented policies to allow for controlled hunting to manage wolf numbers. And there have been a slough of legal decisions supporting and challenging those policies culminating with Congress attaching a rider to the Endangered Species Act mandating the Secretary of the Interior to remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered species, thus allowing the planned wolf hunts to proceed. Montana's quota for wolves is 220 this year with over 12,000 permits purchased.

Quoted from the article linked above:

Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association president Tony Jones was pleased with the court's decision Tuesday.

"It's great news," Jones said. "It means the hunt can go on and we can go about managing wolves like we manage other big-game animals. Maybe we can get back on track to getting their numbers back to manageable levels."

And so it goes. To paraphrase Churchill, we'll get it right just as soon as we've tried everything else.

[SteyrAUG]

This culling and then re-stocking (and about every time we do it we **** it up terribly) is based upon the concept of, 'balance of nature'; something which has never existed in nature.

EXACTLY, THANK YOU.

Anyone who thinks there is some moral force in nature that makes things right has no understanding of nature. If you think "man" is hard on life on this planet, you have never learned about the Permian Extinction or any of the other "cycles of nature" which wipe out life wholesale.

It is our wish for nature to have a moral "right and wrong" so that it conforms to our sense of justice and reinforces the idea that life has a meaning and purpose beyond mere existence. Add to that our personal vanity which believes we can "control" such things in the first place, let alone for the better.

[Zhurdan]

If anyone believes that wolves were ever decimated, they sure as hell didn't spend any time in Wyoming. We would see them every summer going back as far as thirty years ago. Sure, there weren't as many as there are now, but they were never "gone", that is a certainty. Gov. Matt Mead has been working with other Govs in the area on this problem, but it won't get better for many years.

Besides that, elk and deer hunting is booming in Wyoming so, not too sure about the population being down. Unfortunately, with any type of hunting programs, people that come to hunt aren't going to shoot the weak/sick animals, they're going to shoot the strongest, biggest healthy elk/deer they can.

Wolves serve a distinct purpose, humans ****ing up the ratio is the reason for all the problems, not the wolves.

[Littlelebowski]

I'm curious as to how many of these ranchers also graze their cattle on forest service or BLM lands for minimal fees which are, for all intents and purposes, a federal subsidy.

If you want to politicize the issue within the artificial context of the big, bad government, in collusion with a bunch of dirty hippies and "East Coast elites," stepping on the neck of some "Marlboro Man" stereotype of the American rancher, feel free, but I'm not gonna play. I've lived here all my life and, as always, the reality is not quite so clearly defined.



The problem with BLM land is that it is doing nothing and there are plans afoot to designate more of it for....nothing. I see no problem with resposnible grazing upon BLM land. I'd rather see some of it sold back for agriculture purposes but that idiot Ted Turner would probably make sure it was used for bison only.

FYI, my family still owns our original family homestead from 1890 in Wyoming and my dad has 50k deeded acres. You and I have probably dealt with much of the same.

[CarlosDJackal]

I would rather have wolves than those "occupy" hippies. Just sayin'.

[SHIVAN]

Neither extreme is acceptable unless they are made extinct through the continued, and specific protection of domestic animals, people, etc.

Which means it/they were on your land, or your lease, and they were harassing livestock, people, or creating a specific nuisance. Just "being there" isn't necessarily the same thing.

I have no issue killing specific nuisance animals. Or making it open season for the purpose of "herd control". If they need to reduce population size by 100, then 100 tags are issued. There should be scientific evidence to back that up, at least there are with deer, elk, bear, etc. I do have an issue with hunting them for the sake of extincting them.

Hunting them for the purpose of eradicating them just seems a lot like doing it for the sake of saying we can. That's just downright stupid.

[Belmont31R]

Hunting them for the purpose of eradicating them just seems a lot like doing it for the sake of saying we can. That's just downright stupid.




The issue though is that for the last 100 years ranches have grown up with the thought that wolves would not be a problem. In the last 10 years they have become a problem especially in the last 5 years because they were reintroduced. Ranches that have gone 3 generations without a wolf problem suddenly have a wolf problem.


And wolves are FAR from extinct. There are still huge numbers of them in Canada in Alaska where they have much more free roam and range.


Also 100 tags does not equal 100 dead wolves. Generally their over tag and then do real time tracking so they might, for example, issue 500 tags and close the season out when they reach 100 wolves.


The facet I find interesting is that when these wolves were introduced they were "supposed" to stay in Yellowstone but it turns out wolves do not inhabit Yellowstone in that great of numbers naturally. Its high country with mountains and harsh winters. Wolves, from the research I have done, stick to low country and where hunting is much easier as well as they do no suffer from the harsh winters. So it was natural for the wolves to migrate outside the park (where 'they' said they would not go). In my mind it was a complete lie and completely unrealistic. Even as wolves have spread the greenies have tried to block state management and hunting even though they have reproduced to to the tune of thousands outside of the original "100" that were supposed to inhabit Yellowstone.

[SHIVAN]

The issue though is that for the last 100 years ranches have grown up with the thought that wolves would not be a problem. In the last 10 years they have become a problem especially in the last 5 years because they were reintroduced. Ranches that have gone 3 generations without a wolf problem suddenly have a wolf problem.

All the specifics don't matter to me. I simply do not care.

If ranchers have a wolf problem, document it, and then start killing the problem wolves. If that means 200, then it means 200. If it's 1,000, then so be it.

Killing a wolf that you see on a ridge line because it might be a problem bugs me. Trapping, and killing, wolves on remote areas of your land because you've had wolves, that you've already killed, on your land makes little sense to me.

I would look at wolves like any other issue I had to deal with. I would not set out to kill every wolf I saw. Period. End of issue.

[SteyrAUG]

All the specifics don't matter to me. I simply do not care.

If ranchers have a wolf problem, document it, and then start killing the problem wolves. If that means 200, then it means 200. If it's 1,000, then so be it.

Killing a wolf that you see on a ridge line because it might be a problem bugs me. Trapping, and killing, wolves on remote areas of your land because you've had wolves, that you've already killed, on your land makes little sense to me.

I would look at wolves like any other issue I had to deal with. I would not set out to kill every wolf I saw. Period. End of issue.

I can see the ranchers position.

Do you wait until AFTER the wolf has killed something before you do something about it? To me the issue is "where" the wolf is more than "what" the wolf is doing.

If the wolf is on the ranchers land then I think he has the discretion to protect his property. This is why we establish preserves and things like that so wolves will have a place they are protected and at the same time not threatening others.

Again, I think wolves are really cool. But I know ranchers make their living with livestock and injuries and deaths caused by wolves take away from that livelihood. And I'm not gonna the guy to tell anyone that he has to lose money on his own property so we can protect the wolves.

The obvious problem of course is civilization encroaching upon the wild places where the wolves belong. That is the actual problem, the issue of wolves is simply one of the results.

[tgace]

The whole "circle of life" thing is all well and good. just don't be heard complaining when the price of meat goes up.

[SHIVAN]

I can see the ranchers position.

Do you wait until AFTER the wolf has killed something before you do something about it? To me the issue is "where" the wolf is more than "what" the wolf is doing.

Read each of my responses carefully. I answered the question. Nuisance wolves are nuisance wolves. Every wolf may not be an issue. Clear distinction.

Wolves moved to the area because pickings were easy. When the population starts running in to superior predators, they will leave the area or die trying.

If a rancher has an issue, from nuisance to his livestock, family, or operations kill the offending wolves.

Going out of their way to kill any wolf seen, no matter which, where or what they are doing is just plain ****ing stupid.

If I am as involved and concerned as many are making these ranchers out to be, I would have/obtain a firm grasp on which wolves are the issue(s), and which need to be killed -- and where.

Again, no limitation on "problem" kills. Whether it's 200, or 1000, or all of them that continue to return. The wolves better adapt, or they will be killed. Problem is, even if the wolves learn & adapt, they are being pursued and killed in non-problem areas too.

[Littlelebowski]

It's very hard to catch them in the act. Which is why ranchers kill coyotes on sight. I have no problem with individuals killing all the wolves they want since it's almost impossible to regulate and we have no business inserting the gov't into that. Draw the line at commercial wolf killings for profit.

[SHIVAN]

It's very hard to catch them in the act.

The two ranches I go to in Wyoming have no issues killing coyotes or other nuisance animals.

I think it boils down to "it's too much work to catch them in the act". That's fine, but they should say that, and not try to convince me that hunting a canine is any more difficult than hunting any other species.

Use an electronic call box, distressed rabbit decoy and bring all the coyotes, fox and wolves in to slaughter. Alternately, tie a calf to a stake, in a separate yard, and whoever shows up is finished. Have five+ shooters ready with AR's. These are both methods that our acquaintances use, when necessary.

[SteyrAUG]

Read each of my responses carefully. I answered the question. Nuisance wolves are nuisance wolves. Every wolf may not be an issue. Clear distinction.

Wolves moved to the area because pickings were easy. When the population starts running in to superior predators, they will leave the area or die trying.

If a rancher has an issue, from nuisance to his livestock, family, or operations kill the offending wolves.

Going out of their way to kill any wolf seen, no matter which, where or what they are doing is just plain ****ing stupid.

If I am as involved and concerned as many are making these ranchers out to be, I would have/obtain a firm grasp on which wolves are the issue(s), and which need to be killed -- and where.

Again, no limitation on "problem" kills. Whether it's 200, or 1000, or all of them that continue to return. The wolves better adapt, or they will be killed. Problem is, even if the wolves learn & adapt, they are being pursued and killed in non-problem areas too.

I did read your statements completely. I simply stated that I disagree with your idea that the rancher should be required to leave wolves alone on "his" property if they haven't done anything yet. (ie haven't become a nuisance yet).

I understand the rancher taking preventative action on "his" property to protect "his" livestock. I fully understood you didn't agree with this POV.

I just think the property owner is the person who gets the final say over how he protects that property and his livelihood.

I personally wouldn't kill wolves simply for being on my property, but I'm not protecting livestock either. I also think this is why we need preserved areas for things like wolves where they are actually protected.

[Honu]

long time ago one of my brothers buddies did some coyote hunting but ended up shooting some cows on their dads farm
they were in Wash state fog was laying in a low area the coyotes were running in the low area of the fog so they tried to time it as the coyotes ran through thinking it would be cool to shoot them in the fog without seeing them ? so they would count then just open up if I remember they had mini 14s
well morning came a few dead cow that were hanging out in the low area ! lucky they did not shoot more !!!
no dead coyotes though and Brent (the friend of my brothers) was in some big trouble :) dairy cattle !

true story for sure as I had been to the farm :)
I remember other stuff they would do was insane stupid at the time seemed OK when you are a teen :)

[Littlelebowski]

The two ranches I go to in Wyoming have no issues killing coyotes or other nuisance animals.

I think it boils down to "it's too much work to catch them in the act". That's fine, but they should say that, and not try to convince me that hunting a canine is any more difficult than hunting any other species.

Use an electronic call box, distressed rabbit decoy and bring all the coyotes, fox and wolves in to slaughter. Alternately, tie a calf to a stake, in a separate yard, and whoever shows up is finished. Have five+ shooters ready with AR's. These are both methods that our acquaintances use, when necessary.

Which is literal. There is a labor shortage in Wyoming as far as agriculture goes and ranchers cannot afford to match what the mines and natural gas fields are paying. My 67 year old father works all day every day running 50k acres and 3k+ head of cattle. Some folks don't have the time nor manpower and seeing a coyote hanging around a pasture that's been hit by predation is good enough for them and what's more, usually works.

[Jack-O]

until they can reduce the population of humans, I dont think they should be increasing the population of other predators. we had a balance, now it's to heavily in favor of predators.