Saskatchewanians are humans anyway, eh?

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/9469827p-9380218c.html

So much for the wishful thinking of the wolf repopulators. At least it may give people a bit better chance of defending themselves without recrimination. The life lost would be less in vain.

It didn't say if he was packin' or not, but anybody that goes in the woods, especially where those wolves were becoming less fearful, without a firearm of some sort.......not wise....me thinks.

New York City needs a few packs! They can have ours.

The feds have assured us that the wolves in Wy.,Mt., and Idaho would never do such a thing as they are not meat eaters and never kill for fun. So we sre safe.

well somebody's gotta give the mtn lions a little competition right ? there are too many hikers in the woods for the cats alone!

With all the devastating wildfires in CA, they surely lost a bunch of wildlife. I suggest Alaska send them a few hundred wolves to help bring the numbers up again.

A year ago the Lab and I were closely surrounded (20 yards and less) by a pack of 5 or 6 wolves in dense brush on a USFS trail. Since I had yelled twice at the dog, out of sight around the next bend, to return, they certainly knew I was there and what I was. When a young bitch (pup of the year) then came out on the trail and invited my dog off to "play", the .260 put a period to the encounter. Maybe they did just want to play, or maybe they had doggie snacks in mind, or maybe a little of "the other white meat". Dunno. Didn't care to find out. Weaponless, I'd have been up a tree like a squirrel.

Carry enough gun.

That's the "me thinks" part.....

Perfect.....nicely played.

What about lightweight scatterguns with no plugs holdin' 000 buck? I've always thought that might be a very effective/useful weapon for such encounters

It would be about perfect. OO might even be better.

Hitten' them with anything is better than missen' with everything.

I love that pic!

Mr. Carnegie was 22 years old. Doubtful he was sick and weak. Wolves only attack the sick and weak, right?

Yeah............................right.

las you did good in my opinion!

And the old, the young, the slow, the dumb, and the unlucky (wrong place, wrong time).

.........and the unarmed......

Men,
Wolves definitely kill simply to kill. They have decimated the Elk in Bridger and up Greys River and at the same time up to just recently been on the endangered species list which meant simply if you shoot one and get caught you're going to jail. Elk calves and Mule Deer fawns and yearlings as well as Shiras and any livestock they can find unattended are all prime targets. I don't think they would have a problem eating one of us.
Guides that hunt in the area just outside of Yellowstone tell me that they will eat from the front end of a kill back and only eat (in most cases) part of what they kill. If that area were more urban than it is there would be more human contact and we would be reading stories about residents of Jackson Hole or Alpine getting eaten by wolves.
Kill'em where you find em.

Dave

Las, good shooting, too bad you didn't get all of them.

They had a two hour special on tv about this on one of those Hunter and Hunted marathons over a year ago. I posted it. The biologists on the show said they didn't know it it was wolf or bear because the body was moved around and they said wolves don't do that. Bears they said drag their food to a secluded place and eat it. They thought the wolves could have scavenged remains of the bear kill. Now the wolves are to blame again. Will we ever know?

There's a huge difference in wolf and bear tracks but quite a number of easy chair biologists don't seem to understand that. Quite often the feds in our part of the country send a coyote carcass to their lab in Bozeman, Mt., to determine whether it is a WOLF OR COYOTE. Pretty amazing. I watched wolves drag a cow elk about twenty five yards one time. No apparent reason why but they have their own reasons.

Campfire members:
As an ex-Saskatchewanian, I thank Mr. Klikitarik for the vote of confidence that we are human, (smiling here!) I can speak to a couple points with personal experience. While the wolf issue tends to bring out a lot of emotional debate, I believe we can look at the facts fairly objectively in this case.

It would be extremely unusual for a bear to be out in the snow that late in the year in northern Saskatchewan. Try to book a bear hunt there for mid November. I have never seen bear tracks in the snow in Saskatchewan, and never spoke with anyone who did. In most years, it is generally very cold up there by the first week of November.

The coroner�s inquest confirmed the bear hibernation issue. We can only speculate as to why Mr. Paul Paquet would entertain the theory that a bear would be up in the snow, a full month later than normal.

We had another wolf attack this August on the BC coast, north of Bella Bella. In that incident a kayaker fended off a wolf attack with a 4� blade knife. He disabled the wolf and stopped the attack, but was seriously injured himself in the ensuing melee. That was, if I am not wrong, the 2nd attack by a wolf here in BC in the past 7 years.

I must conclude from the evidence that some wolves do in fact attack humans in a predatory fashion, just as some cougars and bears do. That said I do not believe that it is an epidemic. While I understand that the odds of my being involved in a predatory attack are lower than for example getting into a traffic accident, to deny that the possibility exists, is in my view illogical.

All the best on the Thanksgiving weekend to you all!

Regards,
Dwayne

BC30, you are entirely right, However.. the hype forever has been that wolves haven't been implicated in attacks on humans (unless the were sick). The sound you are hearing is bubbles bursting. I suspect Mr.Pacquet would rather saw his leg off with a dull butterknife than admit a wolf or wolves were the culprits.

jesus christ! what a bunch of ninnies - does ir really matter? Lions, bears, bison and moose kill people. Hell, DEER kill more people that wolves. It happens. Get over it...

Brent

Hey Las...

Nice coyote!...grins

best,
bhtr

bhtr, lmao!

that was mean, I like that!

Now wait a bloomin' minute! I did put a "grins" in there somewheres...he he he

I'm also a member of the alternative "coyote" brotherhood. Here's my membership dues paid in full:





Pop came by a little later and wasn't any luckier:



I'm looking for the trifecta to be completed very soon!

bhtr

ps. Las takes WAY BETTER pictures then I...

Well, I do feel sort of bad about killing a pup that only wanted to play. If that truly was her intent and the rest of the pack's I'd happily apologize to the survivors.

For as long as my ammo held out... And she was the only one to show herself long enough for a snap shot. Or snapshot, once I slowed her down a bit.

Bearhunter. - quality counts, but so does quantity! I'd love to hang a black one alongside the grey.

My response to those treehuggers that worship the wolf and would jump on the thought of bringing them to California???????
.
.
.
.
.


Did my part for wolf reduction in Alaska back in '98.
Pulled off a double while on a Caribou hunt.

What you gentlemen from "outside" the known center of the universe, Saskatchewan, don't know is how many outside sources came here to defend the wolves side of the story. It was surprising to see how hard they worked to de-monster the wolves and it embarrased us from here to see this happen. Nice to see for once that the truth did prevail.

The real wonder is that it took so long for a conclusive incident of North American wolves preying on humans to come to light.

Along those lines, its a pity that the Natureswolves.com website is no longer up, its founder having been charged with poisoning wolves. It had a pretty good compendium of wolf depredations... http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles05/wolf.htm

On the original sight was an account called "Who Killed Chris..." (Cable? Krinkle?) . This presented a pretty convincing case from the disposition of his clothing, personal items and scattered remains, that a trapper in the North Woods in the early 1900's was attacked and killed by a pack of predatory wolves. The Colt Peacemaker he carried to defend himself apparently suffereing a broken mainspring at the outset.

(As sad a case of Murphy's Law as I've ever heard)

Birdwatcher

So do automobiles. I hope you're not an EMT! ("Your passenger? Oh, she got creamed - literally, but hang in there, you look like a 50/50 case yourself.")

I'm serious, if Central Park had their fair share the opinions would change!

If wolves do target prey which deviates from the norm,
they would have a target rich environment and a sustainable food source in Central Park.

I am all in favor of crating up about a hundred and shipping them to NYC.

Ok.. So there was a fatal wolf attack in a remote section of North America. What is all of the fuss about? For those of you who live in Metro ____ this sounds scary and you feel like we should round up the bad guys (wolves) but for those of us who live in the hinter lands seeing wolves, bears and all of natures furry beast is all part of the package. Any time man ventures into the wilds we should expect to run into the animals that live here. When I fly down to Anchorage or LA I expect to see some of the local animals who call that city home and I also know that there are some places that are a little more dangerous than others. So should we shoot all of the wild animals (people) who live in these places because a tourist was found dead outside of a 7-11 just after midnight?? Comes with the territory don�t you think?

Any time I jump onto my Sno-go and head out into the Brooks Range there is a good chance that I may run into something that would like to harm me, that�s ok because the chances are good that I am looking to harm something myself. Loosen up guys! It�s called nature and I love to see her in all of her grandeur! The chances are much higher that you will get your ass kicked by a cow moose than a wolf! Last spring I surprised a cow and new calf walking my property out near Wrangle St. Ellis National Park in eastern Alaska. Damn near crapped my self and about got my block kicked in. Kind of cool after I had a few hours to calm down! Life if always a danger and that is why we live up here! Never a dull moment!

So you guys in downtown _____ calm down and head back to the mall and be careful as the chances are much higher that you will get run over by a drunk driver that a wolf coming in and getting your tasty butt



Walt

Kotzebue, Alaska
www.northwestalaska.com

The fuss is that there are plenty of people who think that wolves don't do that.

Mark

The fuss is that hunters, on average seem to like to demonize wolves the way some of the more way-out tree hugger like to deify them. Both sides are fairly ridiculous.

Brent

yeah there's plenty of folks that think they don't do that,

but in large part mostly it's those same folks who think that firearms are only used by bad guys too.

Who cares what they think? They ain't been thinkin right for a long time.


I hope I see some wolves close enough to be worried about them this winter. Worried if I'm leading them enough.

Amen!

Methinks Central Park would be ideal wolf habitat.



Along with any other eastern states and locations that are home to LIBERALS, GREENIES, and TREE HUGGERS.

Let's share them "magnificent" wolves, along with their nightly blood-curdling yowls.

I'm in favor of "sharing" some wolves with "those feds," and turning 'em loose on their door step. Along with any wolf repopulators that helped turn loose this threat.

Apparently I'm among good like-minded folks on this thread.

It's not so important what they think, but that a fair and balanced view is presented to the public. A newsstory might cover a PETA protest about wolf control, but seldom and in few places cover a livestock depredation or even this human depredation story.

The nonhunting public sees wolves the same way they see their pet dogs - cute, warm, fuzzy, and utterly harmless. We know it ain't so, but need that information to get out. That "fair and balanced" thing.

The wolf huggers are also the type that seem to be filling the biologist positions in federal agencies and burdening folks in some areas with reintroductions of wolves. That by itself isn't so bad it seems to me, but foot-dragging to manage wolves like all other wildlife is a problem.

The wolf-hugging public only gets one view of wolves.

NORTHWESTALASKA - "So should we shoot all of the wild animals (people) who live in these places because a tourist was found dead outside of a 7-11 just after midnight??"

Sounds like a plan to me!!!

L.W. (35 years resident of Los Angeles. )

Ditto!

Nice goin', LAS.



Here in WA state, I've known folks who have lost dogs to coyotes, that were clever enough to entice the bowswer to go play with a coyote-bitch in heat, with a pack waitin'!

Go figure.

I don't doubt that wolves are at least as clever.

Come on guys! The view that anyone who admires wolves� or works for the federal government must be a tree hugging liberal is just plain silly. The feds have plenty of wacky right wing nuts to, just look at the current batch of wing nuts in the Bush administration! Enough of that!

Let�s keep in mind that the wolves, bears and all of the other beast of the scary forest and tundra were here long before any of us and they see other animals as something to eat or something to avoid. Humans have applied the notion of good and evil, just look at all of our bedtime stories. Yes the damn wolves eat live stock and once in a while they eat our pets, what do we expect? We are the ones who insist on living close to the wild places and yes we should expect that once in a while we are going to loose livestock to wolves. Hell I grew up on a dairy farm in Colorado and we lost claves now and then to coyotes but not to often. I remember loosing more chickens to skunks and coons than just about anything else!

I guess my point is balance. I live closer to Siberia than to an American road and the caribou out number humans up here 100-1. Yes we have lots of wolves and tons of griz but in all of my years stomping around up here and I do a lot of stomping around, I have only seen wolves once. I was stalking a group of 300 caribou this past fall and was with in 600 yards of being able to drop 2-3 fatties when the whole group exploded and I could not see any reason why. As the main group started to crest the top of the pass where I was sitting in I saw a white wolf running behind the whole herd. Just as the first 30 or 40 bou crested the ridge I watched a group of wolves ambush the whole damn herd! It was unreal to be sitting so close to this example of nature working like a well tuned clock. Was I pissed that the wolves nailed some caribou and I missed out? Hell no! I felt lucky to have seen this happen. If I had been 300 yards closer I might have gotten a shot off at a wolf but it was a privilege to watch it all happen and later in the day a dropped 2 nice bulls a whole lot closer to my boat! We all ate well.

It�s all about balance guys, balance. Room for all of us, even the left wing tree huggers and the right wingers too, maybe even a wolf or bear or two!



Walt
Kotzebue, Alaska
www.northwestalaska.com

Walt,

Nice story. I wished I could have been there and witnessed that scene too. I've been there twice in my 48 year tenure in Alaska...it never gets old.

I can appreciate your sentiment (quoted above) but felt the need to respond. It is about balance. All about balance. Maintaining a viable population of both predator and prey species. Problem is that in a few places, this balance is not being achieved. I am glad for you that you live in a place that has a plethora of prey species to go around. It hasn't always been thus...and isn't likely to be that way forever. More's the pity.

Political pressure in the form of lawsuits has always been a headache for those government agencies that have been desirous of maintaining a balance; they spend their budgets combating the costly lawsuits proffered by the anti-hunting crowd; the monies that should be available to make a difference as relates "balance" becomes unavailable.

As has been stated by others on this thread, there has been an infiltration of some anti hunters into government levels. The good news is that there are still many government employees that are hunters and trappers; they hold a love for the country and have true conservation at their heart's core.They also believe in "balance."

You say that there's room for all of us...that maybe we should all just get along? Many of these anti hunting groups are called by different monikers: "Tree huggers, anti's, Green Peace'rs, bunnies, etc." Most people when applying a name, use one of the above (or any number of others) to describe the ANTI HUNTER political action arm. These people want to stop you from ever hunting caribou or anything ever again. I guess I appreciate your opinion on making room for all, but I will not ever stop doing my damndest to try and make NO ROOM available for these type of people. It is a battle that will never be won, but still needs to be fought...

You are correct that the wolf has got a bad rap in historical cultures and old wive's tales. No one really wants to see the end of the wolf...and I am the least of these. They can be managed just like any other beast that goes on four legs. The methods are just a little different. Twer the wolf to become void and extinct in Alaska, I would leave. Can't happen/won't happen. They could sure be harmed by those that wish for mother nature to be the only predator/prey "manager" legally able to take care of the resource: they are the anti hunting group.

Common sense and good biology should rule the day. Yeh, like that's gonna happen...

Still think there's room for all?

best,
bhtr



ps. I also submit to you that NONE of the animals running around up at Kotz are older than I or have been here longer than I...eh?

I know there are as many opinions on wolves and other things as there are people. I neither hate, fear, nor dislike them. That said, don't think they are any more worthy of worship or political abuse than any other creatures are. I do think wolves ((and some other predators) and the legends and lore have been dismissed by today's "experts" to the point that new "fact" has been invented. I do think that the incident originally posted is eveidence that the contemporary "facts" as we know them are not necessarily so. I don't think Red Riding Hood and other stories are all contrived legends of fear. There are nearly always grains of truth in these things. I think that is supported to some degree by such a modern-day incident.\

I would hate to see the complete loss of wolves and other things from wild places. I don't, however, think we can create wild places from settled, farming, developed simply by re-introducing wolves or other creature to them. I think, largely because of politics, that wolves are abusively protected in some places (like Minnesota, Idaho, etc.)

People argue about wolves. This much is abundantly clear! :-)

I could argue either side. I see truth typed in this thread, lots of it... some problems just don't have solutions that work for everybody, is sort of the real problem here.

I would, personally, err on the side of the wolves, within reason. But I certainly see the other side, too.

-jeff

Northwestalaska,

You make some valid points in regards to the wolf in Alaska. But Alaska has room and wilderness enough for the wolf.

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming do not. This is obviously true, because the wolf could not find room enough to survive here or compete with humans, until the feds spent multiple millions of dollars to reintroduce it and told the ranchers to let the wolves eat their livestock or face federal imprisonment.

Watching those wolves take down and feed upon a herd of caribou was no doubt a thrilling sight. But the thrill is lessened when it is calves or lambs which you have nursed through the cold winter nights which are being slaughtered.

The predator-prey situation was fine in Idaho in about 1970. I never heard any complaints from Montana or Wyoming either that they had big game tags they could not give away. The Feds should have left well enough alone around here and those many millions of dollars could have been much better spent on something which was actually not harmful to the local human population.

I am anxiously waiting for Butch Otter to jump in his airplane with a few hundred pounds of hamburger and some 1080 to take care of the situation.

Klikitarik:

You just said a mouth full, and I happen to agree with ALL of your many points.

I would like to add that I don�t think that the fact that the Wolves were anywhere first, is worth even the slightest consideration.

And, personally I would not enjoy, or revel in, seeing a Caribou or other ungulate killed by a Wolf or other predator.

Smitty of the North

Yep, there are extremists on both sides--according to the extremists wolves are either the devil reincarnated or should be worshipped.........

I just had a great 3 hour conversation this Thanksgiving with a researcher who spent 4 years in Russia on wolf and then Amur leopard research projects. He had previously spent 5-6 years in Alsaka on Brownie research projects, two years of it dealing with problem brown bears in Denali.

Like he said, "Don't make it complicated, just treat wolves like every other game animal, manage them, hunt them, and it's no big deal".

By the time one gets done reading this thread, it's a wonder the wolves haven't eaten all the humans on the planet...........How did we survive when all we had were spears?


Casey

It appears Kenton Carnegie did not have a spear.

Probably tried to give the wolve a big hug instead...........



Casey

Maybe you're trying to be funny? It ain't working.

I have not read anything to suggest he was suffering from TTS (Terminal Treadwell Syndrome), but was just a worker at a remote mining camp that got caught by a pack of wolves.

Any Canadians know if the company had a "no guns" policy?

Yesiree, watch out for those 'wild' wolves...

"Staff believed several generations of wolves there had never hunted for food, eating only from the dump."

Jury Authenticates Wolf Attack

That is interesting JOG. I have a strong suspicion that Prof. Coppinger is right. Dogs did not come from wolf pups stolen from the den:

NARRATOR: For Ray Coppinger and other dog experts who reject the adoption hypothesis, the challenge has been to find an alternative. How else might the journey from wolf to sled dog�and all the other diverse forms dogs take�have begun?

It was only when he started thinking about what was in it for the wolves that Coppinger came up with an answer. Now he's convinced wolves chose domestication, and they did so because of the easy pickings in a Stone Age equivalent of this Tijuana dump.

In a dump, an animal that's a little tamer, a little less likely to get scared off by people, has a better chance of finding food and surviving. It's true today and, Coppinger argues, it would have been just as true a long time ago.

RAY COPPINGER: Imagine 14,000 years ago when people first get the idea of living in a village. They settle down, they build permanent houses, and around that permanent...those permanent houses, all the waste products of their economies build up. You've got waste food; you've got waste materials of all kinds. Now there's a whole set of animals that move in on that. We know them now: we've got house mice, we've got cockroaches, we've got pigeons, we've got all kinds of animals that are living off the human waste. One of them is the wolf. The wolf moves into that kind of a, of a setting, that new niche, that new foraging area, and it's great. You don't have to chase anything, you don't have to kill anything. You just wait; people dump it in front of you.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3103_dogs.html

I note that there is a Canadian biologist who came to the conclusion that it was a bear.

I also note that the retired Alaskan biologist was "contacted by the family" of the victim. We can be fairly assured the retired biologist was paid money for his efforts.

Here we have what appears two equally qualified biologists with different conclusions.

But there tends to be more malintent directed towards wolves than bears in North America, so most people will choose the side they want to believe..............

Casey

I think that wolves are what they are. It doesn�t matter whether people demonize them or not.

I think they're smart enough to have learned to leave people alone, just like they learn to leave bears alone, for example.

Just because they don't usually attack man, doesn't mean that under the right circumstances, motivated by hunger, opportunity, etc. they won't.

Frankly, knowing that they don't usually eat people meat, doesn't make me feel that much safer. I think that common sense would dictate that we watch out for them boogers, and oppose the baloney spread by the "wolf huggers". I think they are the extremists.

IMO, I�m not an extremist against wolves, and I can�t say I�ve ever met or heard of one. I suppose that anyone who is for aerial wolf hunting would be an extremist in the eyes of the �wolf hugger� types, but I don�t believe the facts, no matter how they slant them, support that view.

Smitty of the North

I think that killing anything from the air is a bad idea! I don't have an issue with hunting and trapping wolves but there is no Fair Chase in a super cub with a gunner on board. Poor idea period!

Walt
Kotzebue Alaska
www.northwestalaska.com

Not to me. If you're hunting to reduce the wolf population, I say use use a method that is the most productive.

When you come right down to it, there's really nothing FAIR about hunting, as it is normally practiced.
Smitty of the North

That's why the poorly chosen moniker "predator control" is used instead of hunting - 'cause it ain't. Of course I prefer to call wuff killin'
Ungulate Enhancement!

Come on Valley guy!

If we are choosing the most productive way to kill wolves we would just poison them the way that we did 50 years ago and the by catch would include lots of other things like foxes, eagles and anything else that was with in the drop zone. It is not about Killing. I know that there must be what 50-60 wolf attacks in down town Palmer and Wasilla every year right? There are so few wolf-man encounters each year that we can�t justify any form of control based upon that. Hell there are far more bear problems down on the Russian River each summer that total wolf sightings, do we start killing bears next. Let�s not stop there because once I read about a man eating Snow Shoe Hare that was terrorizing all of South Anchorage, Kill them too!

We are now entering the silly� no the stupid side of this debate!


Walt
Kotzebue, Alaska
www.northwestalaska.com

1st off, predator control is not hunting. Hate to break it to you but its a cull. Plain and simple to take a few #'s out of the population. you want a fair hunt, go to africa and hunt out of the back of a jeep.

2nd, one bio said a dog, the other said a bear. I'm no rocket scientist but basically it means a predator killed this guy. I wasnt there and I am not a quarterback(I hate monday's and I also wasnt there) but obviously he was gnalled on. to some peoples dismay, there is a predator problem in some parts of the US.

Come on walt, lets try to act like adults. Grant it wolf attacks are real rare.

As for the kanai bear problems, you know as well as I do,its a people problem. if you can give a solution to people moving into criiter areas I'm all ears. people are part of the problem.

Bingo! YOu just hit the head of the nail.Encroachment of humans is the problem with most predator issue!

We too often want to kill because we can rather than because we need to. I just don't buy the kill them all stand taht som many of us take and the Macho bone heads drive me nuts!

I have only hunted wolves incidentally, but know plenty of fellows who do it more seriously. I will say that wolf hunting (and trapping) is not a gimmee by any means. I can also say with some certainty that hunting the Northwest Arctic caribou herd can, at times, be almost as difficult as shooting cattle. I think it would be fair to say that shooting wolves from an airplane equates to hunting more readily than does a caribou hunt that equivocates to shooting domestic livestock.

I do not think that we should, by any means, seek to eliminate wolves in places which are indeed wild. Alaska is not the only such place either. However, they are not "pure and innocent" creatures any more than other wildlife. They have a job and they do it well. As with anything so well adapted, sometimes they do the job too well - at least if you happen to be an ungulate. If it takes an airplane to make the equation somewhat more similar to hunting NWA caribou, (when the need to reduce or control the population is necessary), then by all means do it IMO.

Kliktarik:

Ok you lost me some where around the cows and the airplane.. Where are you going with the wild swing from shoot cattle and airplanes??

I know lots of guy who hunt and trap wolves and I have no problem with that but once again what with the cows and shooting from an airplane?? This discussion is not a personal one and this silliness is why I kick myself for getting involved with this type of debate. Some one always takes it personally and get a little sideways!

If there is any way to keep the discussion from becoming personal let me know, until then I will pull back and just watch for a while. There is room for all of out opinions here I think. And what in the hell is the cows thing?

Walt
www.northwestalaska.com

I guess it just depends on where your at in the state.

Our bear camp has been going for 18 years or so and we have never had a dog problem, except for the last 3 years. the numbers are getting crazy or something. we have dogs at the cabin, chasing moose and going after the waterfowl. Things we havent seen before.

I do live in anchorage but I hunt along the taylor (the 7 hour dive sucks but its worth it) but I have had bio's tell me to just shoot them.

We can never elimiate the wolf. I forone do not want to. they have there part in the system, but there has to be a balance.

1) I almost don't know where to start with that nearly incoherent ramble!

2) If I'm a "valley guy" it'd be the Kenai River valley. Time to get out your gazeteer Walt, and look it up - it ain't in Palmer nor Wasilla.

3) The wolf kill program is not about reducing wolf-human contact, it about reducing wolf-moose contact.

4) Poisoning is a bad way to go as it is not a discriminating method. In this case discrimination is very good.

5) Wolves are targeted because wolves are causing the problem in "some" areas.

6) Lets stick to the topic - wolves - and leave the brown bears to another thread. Yeah, there are too many of them here too.

7) If a man wants to eat a snowshoe hare, that's fine with me too.

Other than that, it was an extremely erudite and well written post.

Ironbender
Sorry about the Valley refrence, I was talking to Smitty up in Wasilla.

I don't think poisoning is an option either and I was hoping the
Sarcasm would sneak out some where in that Ramble. I just a Rambling kind of Guy! But thats ok because your rant is ok wit me i enjoy your incite, really!

Walt

Them was fightin' words! Like when I refer to friends who do live in the valley as "them Anchorage boys". Hoppin' mad!

I like it when you hop!

It just suits you and you cover more ground thataway. (grin)

I'd be pissed to. I live in anchorage and hate being refered to as anchorage boys (sometimes the truth hurts and I hate it).

Joel,

Take a look at Ironbender's statement and re-read it. I think he and you said da same thing...he just took fewer words.

bhtr

I know I was just re-iterating my frustration from loving this close to AK. It was sarcasm.

Mr. Northwester:
As you�ve pointed out, poison isn�t the most productive way of killing ONLY wolves.

No-one, but you, has suggested that we should reduce the wolf population solely, because of wolf attacks. It�s to increase the population of them �ungulate� critters.

As you�ve also pointed out, we could easier justify killing bears for for both reasons.

I have witnessed, a �Man eating Snow Shoe Hare� before. It isn't that uncommon. I�ve done it a time or two myself.

I�m sorry, but I agree that you have entered the �stupid side of this debate�.

And, the characterization should be �VALLEY TRASH�, but I prefer to be called a "Mountain Man".

Smitty of the North

Cheechako,

THAT has been illegal for years! There is no law that allows for hunting from an airplane. Fair chase doesn't even come into play. It's simply men hired by the state to perform predator control that would cost the state huge sums of money in manpower and resources otherwise. The biology IS THERE. It's somewhat working. Who brainwashed you into believing that this was hunting? I wouldn't have taken you for being so simple...




Aerial predator control IS the most acceptable, productive measure in reducing wolf numbers. That's why it was chosen. By the way Cheechako...no one was poisioning wolves with the government's blessing 50 years ago. Get your facts straight.As to your attempt at humor, I think your tongue has froze to the inside of your cheek. Much like the youngster that, when faced with a dare, sticks his on a pipe in the winter in Northway... the only sound that comes out is garbled...




It most certainly is. Aerial predator control is about killing. It's not about dating or ordering take out!




Cheechako, take the "WE are" out of the last sentence of this quote and replace it with the words: "I am"...it will read more truthfully. And do another favor for all of us please Cheechako? Refrain from using the word "WE" and replace with "I" or "you" as I doubt seriously any other here will accept your speaking for them. Thanks.

bhtr

Joel,

My bad
I'm the slow one

bhtr

Okay. You said:

I said:



Which means that in spite of the occasional easy wolf or pack of wolves that gets taken, wolves do tend to be very hard-won quarry and involve considerable good luck.



Imagine shooting cattle if you will. If you can't, think about hunting the herd of caribou that drifts around your part of the state with great regularity. Now, assuming you have much experience hunting those animals, think about all the times when they have either stood there and stared - a whole herd of animals standing mostly broadside and within easy rifle shot. That's what shooting cattle would be like. And you and I both know that shooting caribou is sometimes just like that. Other people reading this may not, so I included the cattle thing to give them a picture as well.



If shooting wolves from a plane - let's just go with the thought that it is not hunting at all- is a bad method of reducing wolf numbers, then shooting "virtual domestic cattle" and calling that hunting is wrong also. All that is is "shooting" them. I would question if that should be done either unless the numbers are too great for the range. (Personally, I would like to see you "Kotz guys" stop shooting caribou. Go ahead and hunt them when they allow themselves to be taken in a sporting manner. Otherwise, let the population grow. We all know that increases the likelyhood that they will range further in their search for food which, in turn, means that more people can "hunt" them over a wider area.)

Klik,

You are a gentleman. As such, there is no need to clarify anything that you wrote. This pretender/cheechako is not gonna do anything that will conflict his "righthand" from taking the money from the "lefthand" of those that pay his way. I would be suprised if he wasn't so steeped in "greendome" that he is simply taking a break from his Pricillia Feral worship to cause just a little consternation among the right (meaning correct!) thinking crowd.

Tried kid gloves and they didn't work. I threw out a debate point or two and he ignored them. A spade is a spade...a hoe is a hoe...and a cheechako will always be a cheechako until they learn generosity, a conservative balance of the land, and a desire to improve it rather than rape it for dollars. My guess is he has a ways to go...

You've got the choir singing pretty...don't bother bringing in a self-proclaimed "ringer" that can't possibly carry a tune cuz they're tone deaf...

best,
bhtr

You guys aren't kidding about the whole "Alaska... the Last Frontier" thing, are you? :-) It'll be sixguns at the OK Corral here soon...

I think the clearest way to express THIS outsiders viewpoint on it, and I'll say up front that this is not my geographical region and not a problem I've ever personally dealt with, and those things matter, so my opinion is just that... anyway, my opinion is that I love the idea of intact, functioning ecosystems with all the pieces and parts. Alaska has some of the few remaining ones of those in America if I understand things right. As such, I think the needs of the wolf should trump the needs of recreational hunters, within reason (therin lies the rub!).

Again, that's just my casual opinion. I sure do know that things are waaay different when you are there, "on the ground", than they oftentimes look from the outside looking in. The flipside of that is that oftentimes those "on the ground" lack big-picture perspective. It's at least something to consider.

This is an interesting thread and I hope you guys can manage to keep it civil and shedding light, not heat, because it's obvious there's some very smart people tossing ideas around!

-jeff

Playing hall monitor again?

Jeff,

Please allow me to put this in perspective for you. There are between 7,000 and 12,000 wolves in Alaska...perhaps more. They are not in any danger of becoming extinct (up to 45% of their population could be taken out of the picture (by all means) and their population would remain constant.) The actual percentage taken is much lower. On the contrary, their numbers are growing. There are far more for-the-meat hunters than recreational hunters here...not that makes any difference to me in the slightest. I feel that all should be able to hunt. The problem arises when wolves become too numerous and start taking out pets, livestock, and the prey species that many people here (and elsewhere) are having problems with. There were two accounts of pet dogs killed by wolves in the paper just this morning.

Those that would do away with all hunting are throwing the mix in an uproar. Consequently, without a balance of prey and predator alike, the numbers of the first (prey) will drop beyond what the capacity can carry and will likely end up with a recovery cycle measured in decades rather than a couple of years. Then (though adaptable) the wolves will start to die off as their meal ticket shrinks. Who is the end looser? We are. Whether meat hunter or sport hunter, we will loose. THAT I submit, is not acceptable.

What many people cannot fathom is that ALL hunters to Alaska, and I submit elsewhere, are the only ones paying for the right-headed conservation of BOTH species. To NOT kill a few wolves could be just the worst thing that would ever happen to a system. The "I'm-gonna-sue-the-government, no-one-should-hunt crowd" spend millions of dollars each and every year that drain much of the monies earmarked for proper, biological conservation and protection of the species...both prey and predator. Not one cent of their bankroll EVER goes into the conservation of these animals. Ironic, isn't it, that those who purport to be the animal's savior may be causing the most damage to the critters? And there are flocks of people that keep sending their money in to these? Makes me sick.

No, wolves in Alaska will never be depleted unless the greenies/cheechako's who want NO HUNTING EVER have their way. That would be a shame for sure. The wolf will never be able to be "over hunted" in any way shape or form. But they might not survive the NO HUNTING crowd...

bhtr

Well done sir!

I dont know about Wolves eating humans but they are doing a job on pets in our borough here lately. Two dogs eaten in 2 seperate incidents in the last month and another dog attacked yesterday morning. We got woof problems for sure and they dont appear to be too scared of humnas around here. It appears they are acquiring a taste for canines too!

Mr. bearhuntr:
Very nicely put sir!

Regards,
Dwayne

Had that problem in Fbx in the mid 70s too. Armed-guard parents at the school bus stop to protect the kids waiting to go to school.

Well put Bearhuntr. I wish I had the way with words that you and Klikitarik do. Nothing like a good educational smack down to open up minds .

Thats what scares me the most, we got little kids wrapped in snow suits that arent very mobile at bus stops every morning and every afternoon, and if the wolves are bold enough to snatch a dog outa the back yard, I am afraid to see what happens when they find a bus stop full of little ins!

Aerial culling? And here all along I thought y'all used foxy chicks on snowmobiles!

Yeah, well said Bearhuntr!

I don't think there's very many people who want NO hunting. Even down here in Oregon my anti-hunting friends concede that if they lived somewhere like, oh, ALASKA they'd probably hunt! :-)

Well, like it or not, you guys are the last area in the US to see the types of pressures that are changing (wrecking) the mainland west. It's coming your way and you aren't gonna like it. I grew up in NM and it was really depressing... same here in Oregon. I won't cast it in liberal/conservative terms myself, because it's much more nuanced than that. The real root of the problem is usually too damn many people! Hearing the justifications people make for just about anything, once they move into an area, is nauseating to us all. I'm sure you know exactly what I mean.

If global warming does actually happen, hang onto your hats up there because you will be under a microscope like you can't believe. Lots of critters up there that are very marginalized into corners in terms of the habitat they need, the habits they have, etc. The tundra starts melting, ice starts melting, holy crap there will be threatened and endangered species under every rock... if ya'll even HAVE rocks up there!

Anyway, you guys know way more than I ever will about this. It's interesting to read what you are typing. Thanks.

-jeff

Jeff, it's time to be quiet for awhile.

Sigh... back to lurking...

-jeff

Let's see. I think it makes 4 dogs so far. 2 from 1 family several weeks ago, 1 on Turkey day on CHSR & 1 just last night. Interestingly, my wife works with the lady whose dog was taken on Thanksgiving. Originally, her husband took a shot at one but wasn't sure if he hit it. Turns out he did get one after all. From what I understand, there were 5 in the family - 4 large ones & a smaller one. Pretty evident they're running between Badger Rd. & CHSR - Potlatch Ponds area.
I've got a sled dog that I run with my 4-wheeler & we live just off Brock. I take him down by Potlatch Ponds at the end of Peede. Even tho we have houses surrounding us, I moved both of his dog houses next to the garage facing the driveway. Am leaving the yard lights on at night and the .44 is locked & loaded next to the front door. I think those wolves may well have been driven out from the upper Chena basin so came down this way. I don't expect the state to do anything about it so if they aren't shot, trapped or perhaps harassed so much they leave, I think we'll be in for more trouble later on. They'll just multiply. Since it's a family, Ya can't expect them to take on a full grown moose. A calf? Ok. But that's about it. Once they've tasted "puppy steak" that's it. Evidently they've cut across the Potlatch Ponds area since they were on CHSR last week 'cause the latest "hit" was over on Nelson Rd., not too far from my house.
Anyway, I picked up some extra gear today & I'm heading out in the early A.M. on the 4-wheeler to take a look with the 'ol .270 Win. We've got a waning moon & it's getting colder so I dunno, think it's gonna get tougher.
So, for now, ya'll take care. Later. Bear in Fairbanks

Reminisced on those locations and road names...

Best of luck on the wuffs Bear.

The cause of the wolves hunting in the CHSRd - North Pole area is the lack of snow. Moose are very dangerous for the wolves to hunt when the snow depth is so low. They can run and kick, and are usually healthier, due to mild temp.s and easy to reach browse. These snow conditions are hard on wolves....so they move to where the prey is smaller and pickins easier. Once the snow is deep enough to slow down the moose, the pack will move on to hunt their favorite meal....moose.

Interesting hypothesis. I tend to favor your second, third, and fourth sentence. I do wonder about the first and last though.

Wolves are just like all predators. Their life revolves around a balance between the number of calories recieved from a food source and the number of calories used up in obtaining that food source. Add to that the ability to detect and discern danger (to a rather sophisticated degree I might add,) you are left with an awesome, wolf-efficient machine. I have a hard time believing that once habituated to an easier to catch, high caloric meal like Fido, Rex, or Boomer...they will stop just because of snow. What will make them stop is men taking away the ease of catching their domestic cousin in such an simple fashion. Shoot a couple of them or trap a couple. Then, remove the opportunity by bring Fido inside (take care of Fido, please) and they will move on. If the cost to the wolf is too great, and the fear of man put into them, they will probably leave on their own.

With that said, I'd like to come up and take a poke at em...but I've a few here to manage anyhow.

best,
bhtr

I just love these wolf topics.


I'm so lucky, our MN wolves would never think of harming a human.

MN forestry says so.

Them wolves up north are so uncivilized.

What a shame.

Deep snow winters are hard on moose and easy on wolves. Low snow winters are hard on wolves and easy on moose.

One December, driving back to Fairbanks, I passed through Muncho Lake Provincial Park, B.C., in the middle of a foggy night. The road runs along with Mucho Lake on one side , and the mountains rearing steep on the other. For a distance of about 5-6 miles, there were sheep and moose standing in the road, oblivious to me...in my Mother's Honda Civic. i had to reduce speed to under 20 mph....and, on occasion, had to weave among them. I didn't go more 1/4 mile without having to slow and carefully pass an animal much larger that the Civic, at close range. At the next gas stop, I talked with a couple of locals, who said that there was a large wolf pack locally .... and, nights that they hunt, the local sheep and moose get out on the road, where they have a better chance of fighting or evading the wolves....and the wolves, being the savvy tacticians they are, tended to concentrate on the easier victims in the deep snow.

The pack in this neighborhood is making a paltry living around here....If their whole diet depended on sled dogs and pets, the death toll and the outcry from an enraged citizenry would be overwhelming. Right now, the toll is almost incidental. Much of what the wolves are eating is refuse, manure, whatever garbage they come on, and then an occasional dog or cat. The wolves are just gettin' by. And when the snow finally comes, they'll be gone. That's happened in regular cycles of 5+ years...for the last 28 years in this neighborhood. They always leave. And are years coming back. They aren't going to become habituated....they're simply making the best of a bum season.

Take all sensible precautions....being armed is sensible, but being nervous isn't. I mean, at least they aren't bears....and don't require a .500S&W to dispatch them.

My God, what's hunting and hiking without a little excitement. Snakes and bugs kill more humans each year than all the grizzlies, mountain lions and wolves put together. Protect yourself, kill them in self defense if need be, hunt and manage them, but don't exterminate them. Or put on a skirt and play in the city park.

Chuck

Ah, there's the rub. The green side of the balance makes that so difficult or has in some instances made that impossible.

Yeah, protect ones self at all times, but some places it's illegal to do so vs. lion. No, really. It is.

Hunt and manage? Now there's the ticket. That's all folks are asking for. Yet some places they are off limits to any management program save one that's random and reckless.

That's why some recommend SSS.

colorado:
No-one is advocating extermination of wolves, but just a reduction in they�re number, in areas where they�ve become a problem, to people, to their prey, and ultimately to themselves. This is not easy to do, by any means.

It's been explained rather well in this thread.

Snakes and bugs can be so boring, but you can rest easy. Your life can remain exciting, while you trip the light fantastic, there in the park.
Smitty of the North

"Super Sonic Shovelling?".....grins

bhtr


A.W.G.K.I.L....."a woofs godda know it's limitations"

Re: Humans Kill, Eat Wolf [Re: Klikitarik]

Interesting topic - really caught my attention.

You know, I had to look at the title three times to figure out what was different--hilarious!!!!!!!

I mean I'm rolling here.


Let's see.....

--Those *&%#$#^&^%^ humans! The only thing they're good for is to kill things for pure pleasure.

--They ride around in packs, shooting anything that moves, taking the food right out of the mouths of our children.

--Heck, just the other day, a couple of cubs were playing out on the neighbors front den-porch, and a couple of those hunt-for-sport cretins snuck up and shot them! And then they laughed and joked about it, threw 'em in the back of the pickup and drove off. I bet they let the meat spoil too!

--You know those humans use little metal missles that rip into the flesh, tearing up organs, just for sport? What a terrible way to die!

--Why, they even do this to pregnant females!

--We need start managing these critters, before you know it, there won't be any moose/elk/muleys/whitetails/pronghorns/sheep/goats/caribou/
sparrows/lemmings or red-headed woodpeckers left for us.........

--I mean, those &^%$#^&* wolverines are the REAL problem--we should eradicate them--they don't have the same family values as us wolves.............


Casey

Gotta love those acronyms!


Casey

Ol' Bearhuntd's best is :

DYSABs.

Bender's is:

DGTFDC...

best,
bearhunt'd

Heh!

MN DNR Div. of Forestry could not possibly care less about the wolves, they deal with managing the state owned timber resources. You're thinking of the the Div. of Wildlife, different division, dominated by an entirely different ideology. It could be taken a step further and even better defined by saying that the wolf situation in MN is a product of the Div. of Wildlife fools in the metro area. Then again, most of the problems in rural MN have ties to the metro area so I suppose it would be redundant to mention it in regards to the wolf situation.

Sounds like three scrawny wolves were trapped in Rosehip last week.

ranger1,
Don't fret your little head off. The "wolf situation" in Mn is just fine. It will work out in Montana too. Of course, Montanans would rather I stay out of their business(clue).

Seems your little buddy was a little confused about which agency regulates wildlife in MN. Personally, I really don't care what happens to the wolves in MN - just thought I'd redirect his frustration toward the correct agency(clue).

Heck, ranger! I don't care if ya comment. I was just being sarcastic. Everyone's viewpoint is welcome by me. I'm not like those nasty westerners(clue).
Dave is hopeless. I was going to help him out too, but really!!
Northern Dave,
Did ya hear that the TB zones are gonna be open for an extended season? 'Till January something.

And I do appreciate the comments from Alaska. I wish they and Canadians with wolf experience would help us out on the wolf topics in the lower 48 more often.

I'll get out now, and hopefully read more from Alaskans.

There are reports they are beginning to move into this Canadian's "back yard".

I have no negative feelings about the reports they are spreading their range a bit.

In every area of B.C. I've hunted in where wolves were present - they were handled about like every other game species. If the biologists said their numbers are high - we have a more liberal season, both in duration and total bag limits. If they become scarce - we shorten the season, or allow fewer to be killed. Simple really.

The wolf has as much right to wander the wild parts of my province as I do, and as much right as any moose, elk, grizzly, coyote etc. When I hear or see them, I'm thrilled - just like any other wildlife I observe.

I sure don't see why they shouldn't be managed just like any other game animal. Keep the numbers at a decent level, and enjoy the hunting opportunities they provide.

That's the way I see it anyways, most of the people I hunt with, feel about the same way too.

I don't know what the fuss is about.

exactly.

�I don't know what the fuss is about.�


BCBrian
I would answer by saying that......

The fuss is about whether they SHOULD be killed, HOW, they are to be killed, and the DIFFICULTY in doing so.

Apparently, just allowing hunters to shoot them, and trappers to trap them doesn�t reduce their numbers enough, to solve the problems caused by their overpopulation.

Smitty of the North

you got my anger meter pegged out ranger1.

I'm a lotta things, a father, a mentor, a husband, a friend, a United states marine corps combat veteran..... but lets get one thing straight cowboy.

I aint nobody's "little buddy"

my comments above were about a display inside of a visitor center which i belive was opperated by the forestry. a Q & A type of display of a full body mounted timber with a question & answer that stuck with me.

"will timber wolves harm humans?'

"absolutely not."

My apologies, I responded to the tone of DPole's post in kind and in the process insulted you. Certainly weren't my intention...

Uhm, ranger; the "wolf situation" is a product of the Feds. So ranger, you insulted me (you are talking about some friends of mine in St. Paul), I unsulted you, you insulted Dave and I. So lets just forget that and listen to these northern guys talk wolves. We might learn something.

Dave,
Send me a PM as to where that display is. I'm pretty sure I could get it corrected.

Will you fellas kindly kiss and make up already. Us Alaskan's don't take kindly to people hijacking threads that we had already hijacked! he he he

bhtr

Four years ago this week the "Town Pack" nearly killed my chocolate Lab. They did kill 14 dogs north of Ketchikan that winter. After Kona was attacked I talked with the ADF&G biologist at length, and we got a pro trapper to come in. He caught three, including the one that attacked Kona, and the dog killing stopped dead -- not one since then.

Focused predator control does, in fact, work when correctly applied.

Two weeks ago I climbed the high ridge north of my house and found five wolf tracks -- so they are back. Sooner or later they will start in on Fido again. And A.J, will come back and snare the miscreants again. And we will have peace in the valley for another five years.

It has ever been so...

I just got a short fuse sometimes, thanks. My apologies out to all for further muddying a cool wolf thread. My post above about wolves "absolutely not" being capible of harming humans was in fun as I find it to be a rediculous statement.

I'll try to make up for it with a bit o show & tell (personal exp wiff da woofs)



That would be very cool, I saw it years ago on that north shore drive stretch & it still bothers me today. I figure there isn't much harm in telling people things like "generally speaking, the wolves will avoid humans but be advised, they are wild animals & very capable killers." or something to that effect, but "absolutely not."??? what kind of answer is that? It's like Disney wrote that Q&A or something.

I don't think it was gooseberry falls but someplace close, I guess I was thinking it was on the west side of the highway rather than the east... I think i could drive right to it but I can't remember exactly what stop it was, cross river area? heck i dunno.

now, to try & help get the wuff emotions good or bad back on the tracks, I'll throw some gas on the "hater" side of the fence.

personally I just become easily irritated with the level of protection & the dreamy super fantastic & mystical immage that the wuff cuddlers spew forth. I find it irresponsible, misleading. running too far off in the hater direction is probably a bad thing too, (but that's still the side of the fence i want to be on). I prefer reality, what ever that may be. facts.

anyways, here's a couple of pictures of my lucky pooch from ... last year I think? timbers had been eating a lot of farm dogs in my area, cleaning up on pets, gus my black lab lucked out, must have pursued the famous "chase me I'm a wolf" invite out of the yard & experienced the "ok, that's far enough, now I'm gonna eat you." thing. The only thing I can think of is maybe young gus was either amazingly quick & slippery to get away or maybe they were still too close to the yardlight & the wolf was a bit distracted & uncomfortable in excercising his goals.

Dave,
That would probably be a State Park or US Forest Service office. I suspect it may have changed over the years, but I'll look for it. Glad your dog was ok.

I have a news article from the 20s (I think), but I can't find it right now. I think it was from Ely; maybe the Timber Jay? Anywho, it told a story of a guy walking accross Snowbank (maybe) lake, late at night, that got et by wolves. It has happened in Mn. The thing was though, that they et him up but spit him out, as the taste was horrible. The word spread from pack to pack that Minnesotans just don't taste good and we have not had an attack since. Ok, I made up that last part.

Sorry___unhijack.

the display i talk about was a full body mount woof, big-un too, can't be too many of those along that stretch up there. it was inside a big glass cube type of display case, prolly to keep me from pee-ing on it.

Why does it really matter?

Golden Retrievers kill people, so do black bears and mountain lions and no one out west thinks that is sufficient reason to exterminate them.

In all the time that I have lived in MN, and much of it not more than 20 miles from Snowbank Lake, I have never heard of a wolf attack, much less a fatality. If it is that rare an event, I think we all have better things to worry about.

It puzzles me how so many double standards are applied where wolves are involved.

Brent

Cougars get hated a lot in Oregon, with similar rhetoric applied to them, and there's never been a fatal cougar attack documented here..

Our F&W guys are begging hunters to shoot cougars on sight. I will, because they say it's necessary, but reluctantly. On the other hand they do come through our property from time to time and I will shoot on sight there, because you shouldn't ever SEE a cougar. You see 'em, that means they are desensitized to humans WAAY too much. Time to S, S, and S.

-jeff

Brent,
Just trying to keep to the facts. What puzzles me is when radical anti-wolfers post that wolves attacked somebody, they exclaim "see, those greenie [bleep] don't know shiite!". "They say there has never been a documented....., and now we have proof there has been!" Now really, who do you know that says there has never been a documented.....?" Who are those guys? No one has ever said that to me.
And anyway, the story I told would only be considered anecdotal anyway.

"They?" Sure some do, but hardly all pro wolf people. Just like anything else, there are many types of people and not all pro wolf people - or even most, say that. And refering them as greenie [bleep] that don't shiite(whatever that is), won't make any converts to your cause.

And your's is a cause it seems. You seem as radical in your name calling and declarations as "they" do in their's.

I'm just a science guy. So, I don't really give a rip about all the emotional baggage on either side of the arguments. I just like to understand the system - and the "system" is such that wolves are a pretty major, important, influential, player in most functional ecosystems where they once occured. That is not really debatable in a scientific sense unless you are one of those guys that likes to argue that the earth is flat, evolution is "just a theory" and so forth.

I don't really care if the wolves eat one person every century or one every month. Lots of things out there are have are dangerous and I don't recommend their extinction either (rattlesnakes, mountain lions, bears of all types, raccoons and everything else that could have rabies etc.).

It is a big hairy world and I like it that way.

Brent

That was probably at Tofte or Grand Marais. The Tofte station is too small for a case like that, as I recall, but the GM station is bigger I think. Either of those qualify as North Shore places.



Brent, I don't think there are many wolf exterminators here, unless you count those who would like to see "their" wolves removed from what is established agricultural territory. In those instances, having wolf packs, and especially re-introduced packs, makes about as much sense as having wild dog packs which are protected.

If you like the "science" approach, consider what things were like in Alaska before fish and game (including wolves) were managed. Of course there were no motorized vehicles which could handle snow so people traveled by dog teams or walked. Even so, it was not uncommon for a person to see no moose tracks all winter some years in habitat which no supports many moose. Wolves are indeed a natural part of things. The big question becomes whether we are willing to put up with that. Would Americans continue to hunt if a generation or two of people had little opportunity to hunt deer, moose, etc, simply because the natural cycle was on the down side? That would sure please some folks. No, I would not want to see wolves exterminated. However, I sure do appreciate the people who use a scientific approach when controlling them as and when necessary. I like to see them, I like to hear them, but I also feel no more or less remorse about killing them than prey animals. Like the ungulates, they really are quite useful.

BrentD:
�Golden Retrievers kill people, so do black bears and mountain lions and no one out west thinks that is sufficient reason to �exterminate� them.


�I don't really care if the wolves eat one person every century or one every month. Lots of things out there are have are dangerous and I don't recommend their �extinction� either (rattlesnakes, mountain lions, bears of all types, raccoons and everything else that could have rabies etc.).�


You like to use words like �extermination� and �extinction� but I haven�t noticed anyone advocating that.

So, you�re a �Science Guy�, WOW, I guess that means you know more than most of us who have to deal with wolves.

You musta skipped English though.
Exterminate------ To destroy completely. v.annihilate, abolish, blot out, eradicate, exterminate, extinguish, extirpate, obliterate, root out, stamp out, wipe out.

Extinction-----�The act of totally destroying or wiping out : extermination, annihilation, eradication, extinction, extinguishment, extirpation, liquidation, destruction, elimination, abolishment, demolishment. �

Smitty of the North

Exactly right. We had a pack kill 3 people on the peninsula last year. The rampage was finally ended with a blanket of cyanide getters. Sadly, a few poodles were killed in the process.

It was in all the papers. Y'all probably saw the stories.

What the H are talking about? What exactly is my "cause?" If you carefully read my post, you should see that I am quoting what I see radical anti-wolfers write about "pro-wolfers." I wrote "....that don't know Shiite" because I think its a cute way to write "[bleep]." See, [bleep] don't work but Shiite does; Get it? You sure get worked up easy, and over nothing but misreading and misunderstanding. Get a grip.

I'm a science guy too, but I DO and I learn. I'm one of the guys who do the field work that you read and tell your students about. My "cause" is to learn and inform. My opinion is that wolves should be managed like other game animals because they are as magnificent as any other game animal. That's right, I'm on the wolves' side. If you have not seen me argue that case on this forum, you are really missing something very basic. So back the F off and think before you press the "submit" button.

Well, there is a wolf mount, in a glass case with other critters right inside the front door, at the Grand Marais USFS station. Remember that USFS is NOT MN DNR Forestry. I was here when they built the new building 6 or 7 years ago. I know the gal who put in the display and I just left the station as I had some other business there. I talked to the gal who put up the display, but she does not know where the mount came from; perhaps another station where Dave may have seen it. She says there are no other north shore offices with wolf mounts. This one has nothing like what Dave describes. In fact, as the gal said, they would never put something up like that as "they are not allowed to have an opinion."
Anyway, I'll keep looking.

DPole - sorry to have ruffled your feathers so badly. Meanwhile, I'm hardly worked up at all. Can't take much of anything on this forum seriously enough crack a sweat over it.

I don't mind seeing wolves hunted where they can be. I also don't see much reason to think that the world (or hunting) needs to come to an end if they aren't. How long has it been since Minnesota had a wolf season (or shall we say, a time when wolf shooting was allowed?). 50 yrs maybe? Certainly close to that. In that time, how many humans have been killed? Zero (but maybe we should increase that by 1 for Snowbank Man).

How has the deer herd done in that time? Doubled, tripled, quadrupled? What's your best guess? Certainly it is up dramatically.

It seems that you and some others don't much care for having the same sort of rhetoric pitched at you that you spew in the name of cuteness at everyone else. All dish I guess.

Say, what field work are you doing that I could read about for my classes? Of course, I do a lot of field work myself, so I'm just curious what you are up to.

Brent

It's not the wolves so much that bother me as it is the people who credit them for things like the elevated deer population.

yeah, wolves did that, good job wolves, you guys are awesome. How can we re-pay you? How bout some domestic pets & livestock?

turkeys, sheep, cattle? how bout fido here? I know these domestic animals aren't natural prey for you but since you are protected & have far outgrown your natural habitat areas, and since these critters are way easier to "hunt" than those deer, have at them.

I just love you woofy, woofy-woofy boo-boo, give me a hug, oh good boy, goooood boy. You are the inspiration for my existence woofy boo-boo, hold still while I paint a majestic howling wolf likeness of you to print on thousands of T-shirts. Is that a flea & tick collar wedged in your teeth? We'll just leave that out of the painting, along with the blood stains on your filthy coat.....

Oh woofy, your mystical spirit installs order & balance to the world... blah-blah-puke-gag.


Hey pole, It's been a long time since I was up through that way, I'll bet it's been at least 7 years, I bet i filled out a half a dozen suggestion cards at that display airing out my frustration over that statement.

Try 1973! Far from 50 years - what kind of field work do you do????

I see alot of the Tredwell type garbage too Dave, some people will never learn... Oh I Love You Wolffy be a Nice Bear or was that a Wonderful Rattle Mr.Snake you must need a Love, Oh thats right Mr.Crock you need a kiss too.... Even Science sometimes is Very Lacking in Common Sense.

I'll try to make this real simple.
I'm not ruffled, only asking you what the heck you are talking about, and trying to clarify my position in case you were confused. You made some charges about me. I asked you to clarify. You didn't. I'll try again.
1)What is my cause?
2)Show me where I'm as "radical in" my "name calling and declarations as "they" do in their's." Where did I refer to "pro-wolfers" as "greenie [bleep]?"

Oh.. and 3) I'm still waiting for you to explain the last claim you made against me.. as to how guys like me are making the "planet and society so screwed up."

Well heck! Maybe you got 'er done yourself!
I heard that the feds may have a display at Isabella too.

Anyway, if you guys hear folks talking that way about wolves; never been a documented attack.... or that they are not a dangerous animal, then I'll have to take your word for it. Maybe you fellers hang with a different crowd. Like I said, I honestly don't remember ever having someone actually say anything that silly to me, and I live in lefty county, where green reigns supreme. I know lots of these type folks. Even they know that wolves are potentially dangerous.

Come on Brent, show some class and answer my and Ranger's questions. Or have you become too smug since the full professorship this year?

Oh, I'm very smug - yeah right.

So, where did you answer my questions?

How much has the deer herd decreased as the wolf population has risen from 500 in the 1970s to 3000 today?

What field work do you do that my students read about in class - or even could reasonably be expected to read?

So, have at it.

When are people going to admit that we're made of meat, and any species with teeth and claws capable of getting the job done will if the opportunity presents itself. People get eaten by great whites because we look like seals. We get eaten by mountain lions because we fall into their prey size. We get eaten by predators when we run and trigger their prey response. We get eaten by lions when their teeth go bad and they can't catch their normal prey. Come on, isn't it simpler than that. It's a natural instinct. Animals have to kill to live, weather they're killing a moose or a carrot. Let's all just be glad Sam Colt, Oliver Winchester, John Browning, Bill Ruger and their like came along and gave us the upper hand. There'd be a lot more people getting munched without them.

It's just that simple. It really is.

That is all there is to it, thank you.

So there. I answered your questions first, even though you refuse to answer ones posed to you before you ignored them and posed your own questions. Classy of me, eh?
Your turn:
1)What is my cause?
2)Show me where I'm as "radical in" my "name calling and declarations as "they" do in their's." Where did I refer to "pro-wolfers" as "greenie [bleep]?"

Oh.. and 3) I'm still waiting for you to explain the last claim you made against me.. as to how guys like me are making the "planet and society so screwed up."

dpole, your cause seems to be to jump on anyone that you don't like. Right now, that seems to be me.

You don't make points when you are badgering anyone and everyone. Look at your last post. You're about to burst a gasket. Golly gee whiz dpole - this is the internet. chill a little.

AS for screwing up the planet, the entire "if you ain't with me, you're against me" thing is so damn prevalent here on the net and it ain't getting anyone anywhere. Take you and I for instance, we are basically on the same side. Yet, if I do anything even slightly contrary by your books, you are all over me like a wet rag.

Meanwhile you can post anything you want about me. I mean how much worse can it get? You've already beat me up one side and down the other. Anyone with half a brain should be able to reach any of my webpages in 4 clicks or less.

I just got back from my "unexciting" field work and it was damn unpleasant in addition to the unexciting part, but someone has to do it. I suspected from your tone of writing that not only do you presume that others do my fieldwork for me, but you also don't think much of college folk in general.

Meanwhile, I need to go out and buy a few more hatchets and neoprene gloves for my techs so we can chop out traps and handle animals at dawn. So, until then you can lay waste to me all you want.

Oh yeah, my work involves predator-prey interactions (among other things). This particular time the mice are the predators (would you believe one of them is carnivourous, runs in packs, howls at the moon, and is venomous?). The general principles of predator-prey systems are something I know a little bit about. I don't think that puts me above anyone. But it does have relevance to wolves and ungulates etc.

I also volunteer my time for a few public hunting organizations (PF, Ikes, etc) and I constantly watch them shoot themselves in the foot be attacking anyone and everyone that ain't "one of us".

Now, I gotta git, so keep warm,

Brent

PS. I don't recall going weird on you ever. I don't recall NOT going weird on you over global warming either. But whatever. I got [bleep] to do.

Ya, I'm real bad. The fact is that you apparently construed a post of mine (makes two posts now) in a way I didn't mean it and attacked me for it. I've been trying to resolve the issue by asking you a couple of simple questions so that we can zero in on the problem (makes two posts now), but you just continue to accuse and critisize. It ain't working (makes two posts now-won't be three-I'm done). Like pulling teeth, I tell ya. And in the quest to resolve the issue, the original thread has been trashed. Pitiful waste of bandwidth. I won't be doing that again. Sorry guys.