Well it was just a matter of a short time. We all knew it was going to happen, and it did.

It was reported that two Wolves went on a sport killing spree in
in Eastern Oregon just outside the city of Baker.

They killed 19 23 sheep and left them to rot.

Oregon Fish and Wildlife are encouraging ranchers to get more dogs and electric fence. ( I can't help but laugh at this)

So for the textbook theory that wolves only kill the week and old
that's pure bunk, and the wolves know it.

Sheep now, elk herds next.

Have a happy Thursday.

BAN WOLVES NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Alan

Everyone knows they only kill to eat.....

elkhunter76 - It couldn't have been wolves! It must have been some white males, ex-military types, dressed as wolves!

I still think the Western states need to catch several hundred wolves and share them with New York, New Jersey, Connecticutt, Virginia, etc! I'd love to see wuffs running through Central Park and hear them howling in the East.

I have been a longtime proponent of your suggestion! THey might be able to help with the rats in the cities.....

Just to let you know we're already swarming with yotes around here and the number of people screaming about fluffy being missing would drown out any wolf howl's! Send them up, we could use something to keep the yotes in check! It would be a good change of pace to watch the central park joggers running from wolves instead of muggers..

That's pretty crazy. I think it is past due that we start managing them like any other species, before it gets worse. I think the wolf reintroduction is great, but they can't be let to run amok, per se.

The coyotes we have here howl, and sound damn near close to any wolf howl I've heard (recorded, of course).

Well, in the wild they do only kill the sick and the old, but to them sheep are very easy prey. Even easier than a sick deer.

PS You might need to rebuild your coursing pack and get after those wolves.

But to a wolf, everything seems to looks sick and old.

Just a matter of time before dpole chimes in.

I think we need to round up some Schitt Eating Dogs and turn them loose in Washington D.C.

Alan

You actually beleive that?????????? You obviously have not seen them in action or the results.........me thinks you have listened to too much HSUS propaganda.......

Hawk, that's the PC indoctrination that's feed to our youngsters here in America.

It simply is not true, Predators love to eat healthy animal meat just as much as we do and prefer them.

The weak and old just happen to be in the way for an easy kill.

SU,
+1

Here's the newspaper account. I was wrong on the number slaughtered.

Hey, leave those poor wolfies alone! They're just having fun!

That sucks.
They are probably Idaho wolves, too.

that's it.....and they hate sheep because.....because they're anti-sheep militia

Any naturalist will tell you that in any wild herd it's generally the slowest and least healthy that gets taken out of the gene pool by the predators. That's due to the fact that the healthy individuals can escape or fight off a predator. It's a law of nature. There is no reasonable controversy over this issue.

A perfectly healthy pregnant cow elk, standing in two feet of snow during mid-March is suddenly old and weak to a pack of wolves. The young, old, and weak theory is bunk. In the right conditions even the healthy are easy prey and it does not matter one bit to the wolf.

You apparently have not understood what I said, since in your last sentence you agree with my statement, i.e., that the sick and the old are targeted because they are easier to kill, while the healthy are better able to escape or defend themselves.

the slowest is always gonna be the first ones caught

It's not a theory. It's just a fact. When a cow is giving birth, she's in a vulnerable (weakened) state. The cows, therefore, that are best able to give birth rapidly, and the calves that are best able to run with the herd quickly after being born, are the most likely to escape predation and pass that characteristic on to the next generation.

PS To a wild predator, all sheep are extremely weak, and thus very easy game.

I am thinkin a wolf wont run by an animal just to grab the next fastest... therefore the obviously eat the slowest one, THAT DAY.. just becasue he's the slowest member of the herd dont mean he is sick... kinda like gettin last place in the olympic's....

Yep.

I have a close friend who manages a 260 section ranch in Western NM, just south of Datil.

He has seen packs of the re-introduced Mexican Grey Wolf pass on sick elk and attack healthy animals. Even though the sick elk would have been easier to kill and eat.

They simply did not want to eat a sick elk. What else could be the conclusion?

Being slow, in nature, is being weak.

The healthy animals should act sick, then. Keep them safe from predation.

exactly!!..kinda!!...

The locals up in Northern Minnesota have their own way of dealing with wolf "problems." It's called, "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up."

wolves doing what wolves do.


what a shocker.....YAWN


that sort of behavior by wolves has been fairly documented for at least about 100 years.


it's why folks decided to so strictly control their numbers.


those that fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

I'd stand in the way of anyone wishing to wipe out the wolf, he's just too interesting of a creature to not have him around.


but when you let folks that run off emotion and growing up on Disney make decisions about things they haven't seen or don't understand, you often get a cluster*&^%

Gopher,
I have heard of that in Idaho, too.

Large predators, preying on large prey, will choose the easiest individuals to kill. Most often these are the weak, the old, the young, the sick, or those which are incapacitated or hindered on some way. They will not turn down a target of opportunity as it is possibly the easiest. Obviously, the wolves do not examine the herd and choose only those which are in the poorest health or determine their chronological age. These creatures simply, most often are the ones that present the best opportunity for the least expenditure of effort and energy and are the least likely to inflict an injury on the predator. They will scavenge before they take a live animal too (not always but most of the time).

I don't know why it is so unbelievable that a wolf would kill more animals than they require for a meal. I have no experience with wolves but I have some (too much) experience with their kissin cousins, coyotes. Anyone who has raised chickens in coyote country will tell you that they will certainly kill more than they can eat in a sitting. So will skunks and other varmints.

You can't take a generalized statement and deal with it specifically. Most of the time. Somebody wins the Lottery every day, it's just never me.

Alan

exactly..

Well, they could figure (assuming that wolves can figure) that the sick one is desert and the ones that are still running are the main course. They like to chase stuff and kill it, it's fun. That's why dogs chase cats and why wolves kill sheep.

Alan

For people that don't like to get their hands dirty, a hollow point or full metal jacket to the paunch works well too.

Amen and amen bro.

Wolves or coyotes or bears or bobcats and cougars are not furry people. They are wild animals and do what they do.

BCR

Probably the best description yet.

Alan

Yep - stupidity can be a scream at times... Sounds like our DNR too.. Dead cattle, dogs, humans, no biggie; gotta protect them WOLVES doncha know...

But, (sputter, sputter) those wolves are VICTIMS!!!!!

.............oh and by the way wolves only kill to eat....not for the sake of killing.........and they eat every scrap of what they kill.......yeah right! Had one of your "naturalists" tell me once that coyotes don't kill things either....they only eat dead stuff and are scavengers.....uh huh! Too many Disney taught experts out there.

I don't want to see them wiped out, but I do want to see them controlled. We had them here before they "reintroduced" them.

Here is an interesting article that came out today on the subject.



This was about 15 miles out of Baker City. The front page of the paper shows 2 wolves (photographed) during the night returning to the kill sight. The plan is to capture, collar and release them back into the same area. The collars would allow the ODFW to "warn" the land owner when they return to kill more sheep. HOW STUPID!

Photos confirm wolves killed Keating lambs
Written by ED MERRIMAN Baker City Herald April 15, 2009 12:12 pm



Russ Morgan, ODFW wolf coordinator, says the rubber-jaw traps set around the Jacobs Ranch will grab and hold a wolf without seriously hurting the animal. If a wolf is caught, biologists will fit the animal with a radio-tracking collar, then release it nearby. (Baker City Herald/S. John Collins)
A motion-sensing camera photographed a pair of wolves before daylight Monday at the Jacobs ranch in Keating Valley, where 23 lambs have been killed since Thursday.

�This is the first confirmed depredation of livestock by wolves in Oregon� since the predators, which were extirpated from the state about 1946, returned in 1999, said Russ Morgan, wolf coordinator with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Morgan said Tuesday afternoon that a camera he set up at the Jacobs ranch about 15 miles northeast of Baker City photographed two wolves around 3 o�clock Monday morning.

When he first looked at the photos on a laptop computer at the ranch Monday morning, with sunlight glaring on the screen, Morgan couldn�t say for certain whether the animals were coyotes or wolves.

But after looking at the images on a larger screen at the ODFW office, he recognized the two big canines were in fact wolves.

To verify his conclusion, Morgan said he e-mailed the photos to wolf experts in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, who confirmed that the animals in the photos are wolves.

His goal now is to trap the wolves so he can fit them with radio-transmitting collars, which would allow ODFW to monitor their movements and alert Curt and Annie Jacobs if the wolves return to the ranch.

Morgan said it is unfortunate that Oregon�s first confirmed case of wolf depredation on livestock involved an attack on lambs confined in a fenced pen near homes and other buildings, rather than an attack in the forest or rangelands.

The latter is the more typical scenario for wolf attacks on livestock, Morgan said.

Curt Jacobs said he intends to apply for compensation for his losses from Defenders of Wildlife, a group that supported the reintroduction of wolves to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming starting in the mid 1990s.

Although biologists haven�t confirmed where the wolves that killed the sheep came from, several wolves have migrated from Idaho to Oregon during the past decade.

Jacobs said he�ll ask for $100 for each of the 23 lambs, and possibly for $5,000 in losses he�ll incur over the next five years due to the lost production from ewes that were killed or severely injured, for a total of $7,300.

In a press release issued Tuesday, Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife said the organization has offered to pay Jacobs for the value of his sheep, �if wolves are determined to be responsible.�

Wolves attacked sheep at Jacobs� ranch Thursday night, Sunday night and early Monday morning.

Morgan said his goal is to trap the wolves that killed Jacobs� sheep and fit the wolves with radio tracking collars.

Morgan said he also wants to use other measures allowed under the federal Endangered Species Act to prevent future wolf attacks at the ranch.

�We�ve gotten pretty good at killing coyotes that get into our sheep,� Jacobs said Tuesday. �We put a gun on the four-wheeler or get in a helicopter and hunt down the coyotes, but this wolf deal is a whole different thing.�

�I guess if they catch a wolf, they�ll put a radio collar on it and turn it loose right out here. The only thing I can do if they come after my sheep again is make noise, wave flags or shoot it with rubber bullets or bean bags to scare it away,� Jacobs said.

�I�ve got six guard dogs that do a pretty good job of keeping the coyotes away, but they tell me the wolves will kill the guard dogs, so I�m keeping them penned up.�

Morgan said that if biologists trap any wolves, they will release the animals nearby, rather than taking the wolves to Idaho.

In March 1999, when biologists first confirmed that a wolf had crossed the border from Idaho into Oregon, officials trapped the wolf in Grant County and took it back to Idaho.

Wolves in Northeastern Oregon will be protected under the Endangered Species Act until at least May 4.

That law prohibits people from killing or harming wolves, even ones that are in the act of attacking livestock.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced earlier this month that it intends to remove wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, including Northeastern Oregon, Idaho and Montana, from the endangered list as of May 4.

Conservation groups, however, have vowed to file lawsuits to try to block the delisting.

Such lawsuits succeeded in 2008, when a federal judge overturned the Fish and Wildlife Service�s decision to remove federal protection for wolves.

Even if the animals lose federal protection, they will still be protected under Oregon�s endangered species act.

Oregon�s wolf management plan, which the state Fish and Wildlife Commission approved in 2005, would allow livestock owners to shoot wolves that are attacking domestic animals.

However, that provision in the wolf plan won�t take effect unless the Oregon Legislature changes state law. Legislators have considered such changes twice this decade, but have yet to approve the changes.

Curt Jacobs� father, Ralph, who started herding sheep on the ranch when he was six years old and has been at it for 83 years, said wolves are one predator his family never had to deal with in the 99 years since his father, Harry Jacobs, founded the ranch in 1910.

�I�ve fought bear, coyotes, cougar and every other thing, but I never had to fight them right here in our feedlot before,� Ralph Jacobs said.

�My dad homesteaded here 100 years ago next year, and we never had a wolf on the place,� he said. �Hell, we hardly knew how to spell wolf.�

One of the experts Morgan called on to help identify and trap the wolves is Carter Niemeyer, whom Curt Jacobs calls �The Wolf Man.�

Niemeyer was a member of the federal Wildlife Services team that trapped 66 wolves in Alaska in 1995 and 1996 and released them in Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho as part of the wolf reintroduction program.

Niemeyer retired last year after a 33-year career working with wolves for the USDA and later with Wildlife Services. Now he volunteers to track down wolves thought to be descendants of the wolves released in the 1990s, in cases when wolves are blamed for livestock depredation and other problems. Niemeyer also comes out of retirement for a few months each summer to track and trap wolves for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

�I looked at the pictures, and my opinion is he has pictures of wolves,� Niemeyer said.

He said wolf populations have risen much faster than he or anyone involved in the initial reintroduction imagined.

Since those 66 Alaskan wolves were released � 35 in Idaho and 31 in Yellowstone � the population has grown to an estimated 1,600 wolves across Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and a few others that have migrated into Oregon, Washington, Utah and Colorado, Niemeyer said.

However, he said that expansion has created problems, including an increasing number of livestock depredation cases.

�I spend more time than anybody in the Northern Rockies looking at livestock damage by wolves,� Niemeyer said. �It�s pretty unusual for wolves to come in near buildings and people and kill little lambs and not adult sheep, but I have seen it before in Idaho.�

�Some wolves develop habits of killing certain types of livestock and not others,� Niemeyer said. �These wolves could easily kill adult sheep. It doesn�t take a pack to kill a yearling elk calf or yearling cattle.�

Although most wolves feed on wild animals, primarily deer, elk and smaller game such as mice and gophers, Niemeyer said he comes across cases like the lamb killing at the Jacobs ranch from time to time that perpetuate the predators� �big bad wolf� reputation.

�I have a lot of pride in the wolf recovery program, but I know they have to be managed,� Niemeyer said. �It�s been a very controversial issue, very heated, very emotional, very passionate.�

�Almost everyone on the street has an opinion, whether they love or hate wolves,� Niemeyer said. �Wildlife managers need to balance all of those needs and values.�

�Wildlife managers need to make sure they are fair to the ranchers� whose livestock are killed by wolves, he said.

Proponents of wolf reintroduction agreed.

�Wolves and livestock co-exist just like other wildlife co-exists with livestock, but unfortunately there will be occasional losses like (the Jacobs sheep),� said Stone from Defenders of Wildlife. �Defenders has worked with hundreds of ranchers in our region to avoid conflicts with wolves, and compensate for losses when appropriate.�

Recent documented wolf attacks on people in Canada serve as a reminder that claims that wolves don�t target livestock or humans are not true of all wolves.

�Of all the big predators, the wolf is very capable of killing people. It is rare, but they�ve got the teeth for it,� Niemeyer said.

After looking at the photos e-mailed by Morgan on Monday, Niemeyer volunteered and was on the road within 45 minutes from his home in Idaho to Keating to help track down the wolves.

�I�ve always been a trapper since I was a small boy. I like the challenge. It�s not the challenge to kill them. It�s the challenge of tracking them, figuring out where to set a trap, and getting them to put their foot in one little 6-inch spot,� Niemeyer said.

This isn�t the first time Niemeyer has helped Morgan track and trap wolves in Oregon and fit them with radio collars.

�I came in and worked with Russ last summer when wolves were spotted above La Grande,� Niemeyer said. That was the first documented case of a pack of wolves in Oregon since wolves were released in Idaho in 1995.

Niemeyer said he was also on the team that tracked, trapped and collared the first pair of wolves and wolf pups found in Washington state last year in the North Cascades near Twisp.

At the Jacobs Ranch, Niemeyer and Morgan spent Monday afternoon and all day Tuesday following wolf tracks and finding other wolf signs, such as droppings, to identify the path the wolves followed.

Niemeyer said the wolves most likely traveled the five to six miles from the forest above Keating Valley, to the Jacobs ranch, in less than 20 minutes.

�Wolves have large lungs, long legs and big feet. They lope along at 3 to 4 miles per hour, and they can run along at 20 mph for hours without breathing hard,� Niemeyer said.

Once they map the wolves� travel corridor, Morgan and Niemeyer will pick the best spots for burying rubber-coated foot traps designed to trap the wolves without seriously hurting them.

�The traps we�re using are called easy grip foothold traps,� Morgan said. �They have rubber jaws.�

�We have a responsibility if we trap an animal to reduce the risk of injury as much as possible, even in a setting like this,� Morgan said.

By trapping the wolves that killed Jacobs� lambs, Morgan said he can help prevent future attacks by attaching a radio transmitter collars to the wolves, which will alert ODFW and Jacobs if the animals return to the sheep pens.

�I feel right now my primary responsibility is to help this fellow here (Jacobs) who has suffered a loss,� Morgan said.

Morgan said he may also install two types of behavioral fencing.

The first type has flags that blow in the wind and are supposed to drive wolves away.

If that doesn�t prevent the wolves from entering the sheep pens, Morgan said the second option is to install electric fencing.

�The main goal is to keep this from happening again,� Morgan said.

I gots news fer ya.. It ain't limited to northern MN...

Ranchers/farmers get p-o'd enough and after they get done SSSing the wolves they're going to - well, never mind...

That's absurd. No reasonable person would expect a wild predator to limit himself when multiple easy kills are available (such as domesticated sheep), nor to eat every bite if he's not hungry. That issue has nothing to do with what I said, and there is a difference between a naturalist and an environmentalist. Also, no one said that all self-described naturalists are equally qualified to speak on every question.

I was being sarcatic................BTW you are just like the news media culling quotes... Can I join your ignore list?

I think can agree with that, to a point.


That's also what a retired Oregon Game Bioligist of 25 years told me personally till he inherited his father in laws ranch and it became his livleyhood. He no longer believes that.

He has severe predator problems.

http://www.katu.com/outdoors/news/43055822.html

That is the method in north WI too. I was soooooo close to doing that to a bear that would not leave my tree stand setup last deer hunt. And the year before too. I shouted and cursed that bear for some time. It could have cared less. Had to shoot a stump next to the bear to get it to leave.

See, where my place is, deer (fawns)are being killed by the increasing wolf, bear, coyote, and fischer population. And the adult deer make themselves scarce because of the predators. There is now a known wolf pack in my area, the bears are common. Coyote pop. up too.

You've been had by the animal myth-mongers. A wolf or pack of wolves will kill one animal and leave it to kill the next-slowest until they get tired. They will kill far more than they can eat if they are able. Virtually everything the animal-activists have said about wolves is false. Including the myth that wolves won't attack humans. We've seen the proof locally.

BTW - Oregon - you're very welcome! Enjoy!

That�s the same kind of crap our liberal thinking hippies have in this state. You sure you�re not from Eugene or Portland????

Damn until they get down to the last elk there is always going to be one that�s unlucky or as the hippies say that is sick.

Nothing I've said in this thread is the least bit controversial unless you intentionally twist the meaning. There is no simpler to understand concept than that a hungry predator will prefer the easiest kill.

Your ok Hawk,

If you noticed, I used words like slaughter and bloodbath
just to spite the lib press who use that lingo freely
in just about everything they write.

so what do they eat if they don't find a weak or sick one?

No twisting the truth here, I have seen yotes take down deer on my ranch there was nothing sick or weak or old about them they cut it out from the other deer and ran it down the hill when it tried to return to the other's by going back up the hill the yote took it down. The deer just made the wrong move. Again that animal wasn�t sick, weak or old.

Stupid Pucking hippie�s liberals want these back in the states while they live in town and the ranchers get to deal with them. And they kill off all the big game as well.

You would probably feel a little different about them if they came into your yard and killed your pit bull.

Alright, Which one of these guy has been killing fawns?


Fischer 1 |ˈfi sh ər|
Fischer, Bobby (1943� ), U.S. chess player; full name Robert James Fischer. He defeated Boris Spassky in 1972 to become the world champion, a title he held until 1975.
Fischer 2 |ˈfɪʃər| |ˈfɪʃə|
Fischer, Emil Hermann (1852�1919), German organic chemist. He studied the structure of sugars, other carbohydrates, and purines and synthesized many of them. He also confirmed that peptides and proteins consist of chains of amino acids. Nobel Prize for Chemistry (1902).
Fischer 3 |ˈfɪʃər| |ˈfɪʃə| |ˈfɪʃɐ|
Fischer, Hans (1881�1945), German organic chemist. He determined the structure of the porphyrin group of many natural pigments. Nobel Prize for Chemistry (1930).



Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Really though, I had no idea that a Fisher was big and bad enough to kill a fawn! I thought they were about like weasels or some such.

Alan

they are weasels.......just like wolverines are weasels.....they is big friggin weasels

Some good information here on wolf behavior.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3808155?cookieSet=1

There is never a situation where all members of a herd are exactly equal in their power to avoid predation. Some will be "weaker" in this respect than others. Those will be the next to die.

Best thing that ever happened, the lower 48 getting wolves.

Had they not got their share, we'd certainly have no predaton programs up here.

Can't say I think wolves only prey on the "sick and weak", per se. To an Alpha predator such as the wolf, especially a pack of wolves, ungulates no matter the age or size seem like pretty easy quarry, especially 23 lambs. Combine deep snow with that equation, a mature bull elk even becomes pretty easy prey. They act on their instincts, nothing more or less. I can't believe they are serial killers that try to kill every animal in sight for shear pleasure, there is a natural reason they do it.

No way in hell they should be wiped out, anywhere. That's a ridiculous statement. However, they really do need to be managed by hunters, ranchers, and wildlife agencies.

After the rut, the big trophy bucks & bulls that we pursue as hunters ARE the weak.
Deep snow makes for easy pickings of all ages & sizes.
Wolves hunting in a pack are the most efficient killers in North America.
Fortunatley a few places allow for sensible control, an uphill battle with the "Animal Planet Biologists" here in the lower 48.
A friend of mine does his part every year.

No argument there.

What in Sam Hill are you talking about? What exactly do you think I feel about wolves that needs changing?

lol, bad speller me iz. Fisher Wikiped

They take the sick, the old and the UNLUCKY! The old theory you espouse is just krap and no serious wildlife biologist would suggest it. Get over it.

Yeah, I'll just toss it aside along with the law of gravity and elliptical orbits.

When you're wrong, you're wrong. You never seem to get that.

But don't believe me. Call Professor Decker at Colorado State University.

Would you mind formulating a cogent sentence that you believe summarizes my position on this question. I'm curious what you think you're arguing against. It simply cannot be what it appears.

Welcome to the jungle baby...finally other states are beginning to get the idea besides Idaho and Wyoming. There is no managing wolves. As wintering deer, elk, moose are pushed by wolves into inhabitable areas, starvation takes over and weakens more than just a few. With less wild habitat and forage areas today than 100 years ago, these animals don't have a chance. And do we simply close off domestic grazing areas when wolves move in? kinda like expecting mobsters to stay in New York and Chicago.
After awhile it just gets silly, all the talk about managing wolves in the lower 48.

you guys are arguing past each other......Hawkeye didn't say or imply what some seem to have drawn from his post. Of course, all things being equal, the slower and weaker target usually gets picked off first, since they're the first ones to get caught...that's all he said.

He didn't say they don't kill for the thrill of it, or that they never kill healthy animals, or that they don't kill more than they can eat, or that they ought to be cuddled and loved and protected.

in fact, if somebody would offer, I'm relatively sure ol' Hawkeye would be happy to come SS&S with you. I would, but I'd rather whack one in AK so I could keep the hide.

Tan your own. I won't tell.

It seems clear to me that the wolves did not kill the sheep. The sheep committed suicide by hurling themselves against the wolve's teeth. It happens sometimes, especially in herd animals.
Actualy, when Colombus landed in this hemisphere, the coyote was quite limited in territory to the SW US and NW Mexico. It was only after eradication of the wolf, which had killed coyotes at every opportunity, that coyote populations expanded so that today they are all over the US and even into Canada.
I like wolves, they are fascinating animals. But I believe they should be restricted to the, increasingly many, "wilderness areas" and that wolves which depredate on livestock, especially near people's houses, should be killed. True, wolves don't USUALLY kill people, and USUALLY don't attack livestock. Have they EVER attacked livestock or killed people? Most certainly. The imposibility of pinpointing in advance which ones will do so makes it reasonable to strictly control the entire population. Wolf control is best, and cheapest to taxpayers, done by hunters and trappers. Just my thoughts.

19 dead sheep in Oregon?

JeffO must be pissed....

he'll find a new girlfriend

ewe are baaaaaad

Umm.. seems to me that the statement above is blatantly false. They ONLY kill the sick and old.. nope. Wrong. Admit it and move on.

Not false, just not formulated in anticipation of being picked apart by hyper critics looking for something to disagree with. For it to be a perfect statement, I should have substituted weak or least fit for sick and old, but for the most part the above statement is true, and only someone looking for an argument would find fault with it.

I personally believe that everyone of those [bleep] sons of bitches found outside of the park should have the exact rights as the coyotes.

[bleep] 'em!

This is where you started. Now you're at "easiest meal."
Frequently the easiest meal is a prime, healthy critter that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The "sick and old" only is a myth. A few wolves are capable of taking down any ungulate in North America and do so on a regular basis.

I'm not anti-wolf per se, but the truth is the truth. Wolves and grizzly bears don't mix well in many places - sad but true.

Best comment I have heard on this thread...

It's looooong past due for a little wolfy reality check Tim!

To be honest they've never caused me any personal grief but I still want to hunt 'em in the worst way.

I'll put it another way. Wolves will eat anything they can catch, and they can catch anything on four legs. For those in Rio Linda

There I fixed that for you!!!!

Sam,
Agreed 100%

My opinion is that in Idaho, even if ALL of the wolves were to be exterminated, it would take quite some time for the elk population to recover.
Sad situation for us hunters.

It's just that the "easiest" isn't always sick or weak. It's the "sick and weak" phrase that calls attention in wolf discussions.



As an aside, who was the alleged biologist that started the sick and weak arguement? Brainfarting the name.....

I think his first name was Walt and he liked mice.

Farley Mowatt

Never Cry Wolf.



Dang...that hurt to dredge up........

TFF

Believe it. We have witnesses. BTW - the natural reason is "practice". Like any other predator, those who practice will do better. Practice gives pleasure. If it wasn't pleasant for the wolf, it would'nt practice.



I agree with that. It's a good thing to have a few wolves. They do, in fact, take out the dumb ones and the slow ones first.

The problem arises when the wolf numbers grow to the point of having a negative impact on animal populations which cannot be sustained. It seems from reports and from my own observation that reached that point some time ago in Idaho. If the wolf numbers are left unchecked (as in limited to less than what we already have), game herds in Idaho will soon dwindle below huntable populations.

IMO, that is the unspoken goal of the wolf activists.

I bet they go after the easiest meal. I'm all for hunting them but not to the point of extinction or extirpation. Just low numbers. There have been probs in WI, pets, bird dogs, and of course sheep and some cows. A waitress who waited on us during deer season in Bayfield had a cow killed. The DNR paid for it, but they had a small farm, the cow was one they had for awhile, it was like a pet/part of the place. The thousand bucks did little towards replacing the actual loss. It was a dairy cow, you get good return on them if they are good producers.

Too many pages to read here, and I don't feel like getting into a pissin match. Regardless of your personal views on wolves, I'll say this.

Anyone who says wolves kill the weak(est), old, sick or slowest first has zero experience with wolves. You certainitly have never actually watched a wolf(s) pick an elk out of a herd and kill it. I have seen them run past several to grab another. This has been seen by several ranchers here in the Bitterroot.

If you want to bring biology into the equation, do the costs/benefits of killing a so called "easier" prey outweigh the
costs/benefits of spending just a little more effort to kill a healthy animal? An animal that is less nutritious or diseased? Wolf adaptations may have selected for wolves to bypass obviously less healthy prey, because hey, who wants to eat that nasty ol cow when that nice healthy one is just a little harder to take down.

My point is the whole "slower, sicker, older animal first" argument is very debatable.

The whole "slower, sicker, older animal first" premise is also FALSE. If you been there, you know.

you wouldn't really want to do that to a wuff, transporting them to the east. You would want them to get sick eating liberals?
Couldn't taste good

No it isn't. It's a law of nature. The stronger and faster (those best at avoiding predation) survive and pass that advantage on to the next generation.

Reintroducing wolves, stopping the use of hounds for hunting, restricting trapping methods and so forth are examples of the continuing tyranny of democracy by those who have no stake in the outcome. This is a republic. How the Feds

Couldn't they drop a few off in California, NYC, DC and so forth?

I know several fishermen that would love to share a sea lion. I am holding back from bringing up spotted owls.

Coyotes are bad enough on sheep, they like to come in and chew on throats and choke out a bunch too.

Once the wolves get educated try catching them or even getting good pics.

We have problems coming that will take years to solve.

In Oregon we currently have seals and sea lions all over our docks and dams, redtail hawks on every fourth fence post on I-5,
cougars coming into town and beginning to make attacks and now wolves.

Mom was from Michigan and used to talk about the packs chasing the cutters at night. I wonder if they will chase snow boarders.

Yep, if the wolf population is left unmanaged and let to continue to grow naturally without our intervention, our game and livestock numbers will continue to dwindle until there is nothing left. The wolves will kill until there is no prey left, at which point their numbers will decline, only to rise again once the prey populations increase again.

Mix hunting in with that, and we're taking a lot from the prey numbers, but doing nothing about the predator population. It's growing unaffected, while we do have natural and man made population control for prey. It's well overdue that we start managing the wolves in the Lower 48 like any other game animal, before it's too late. Unfortunately, I think most in power will not realize this fact until it is way too late.

And that is why wolves in America hunted elk into extinction before modern man arrived on the scene...

Easy there Bud, we already have major problems with a large apex predator, the mountain lion.

These are the boys I run with...



Isn't Portland Oregon's San Francisco?

When I was a kid, we never lost a single calf to a coyote. Most of our neighbors lost many. Of course we shot the coyotes that got near the cattle and I'd do the same for a wolf, but that's not the secret to highly successful calving anyway. We always reserved a few hundred acres around the house for calving season. We'd move the heavies in there and keep an eye on them through the process. it just so happened that through the picture window in the living room, you could see most of the pasture in the daylight, and at dark somebody would be out there at least every few hours--some of those calves will need pulled too and if you're not watching and if you turn 'em out and forget about them some will die without any coyote intervention at all. My dad always said that if you was down at the saloon moanin' about all the calves you lost, you weren't much of a rancher anyway.

I never was around too many sheep, but I know there was a time when a sheepherder lived with the sheep and run things off, or tried to at least, before too many sheep got ate.

Times have changed! Nowdays many ranchers live in town and do quick drivebys on their herd and hurry home to watch tv, even the ones that still live on the ranch like their tvs and their "interweb" as much as you or I do.

Now, I'm not in this instance taking a part in either side of this argument, but I know quite a bit about the guy that's complaining about all his livestock losses. I'm thinking if he'd of been somewhere nearby maybe firing a few rounds into the hill, or if noone is looking , popping a wolf or two, and every coyote that he sees, he wouldn't be losing near so many sheep or calves.

On the other hand if I was the guy that lost a bunch of livestock to coyotes or wolves, I'd probably keep it to myself partially out of embarrassment for my lackadaisical ranching practices , and partially because I wouldn't want to draw any attention to somebody counting or watching and trying to make sure that the livestock killers in my neck of the woods could be getting some extra protection.

You have LESS wilderness today than 100 years ago, and with the previous drought conditions of the west, you have less forage. Wolves drive game during the winter into areas that cannot sustain the herd. Hence wolves CAUSE weakness and sickness in greater numbers of the herd. How hard is that to understand?

I understand what happens to game well too, my post was entirely about livestock and I'm a long way from a 100 yrs old.

I know. I was referring to others' posts. I wasn't debating you, and for the most part, I agree with you. One thing you didn't mention though, in regards to ranchers. Some of the ones I know, work ranching and have a job off the ranch, to make ends meet. So their presence on the range 24/7 isn't possible. I live in the Riverton/Kinnear area.

This Alaskan is on board. Our Air National Guard needs some night runs..... especially in the summer- we can fly to dark....

Hell, we'll even put chutes on the crates....

That description seems to fit the author...just sayin'....always did suspect self proclaimed purveyors of fact who didn't live in the territory they espouse facts about.....

BearMC,
That's very true, but it may, as it did with our family, take everybody taking turns, you know a calf needs pulled when it needs pulled weather you gotta go to work in the morning or not, and if you aren't watching for that, you're not gonna see the coyotes out there that night either.

BTW, I just sold my little 20 cow herd that I ran North of Ft.Laramie last fall because of my real job too. It got to be too much, especially with the way gas was then. Fortunately for me bricklaying season usually wasn't calving season, but still . . .
I live in Torrington, but would camp out at the old ranch house or bring the cows in heavy to stubble closer to town when it was calving time. Seems like most calves that were born, if you just hang around and watch them, you can look around and more than likely spot some coyotes watching you watching the calving. If you can get them up and a few hours old their momma will stomp the coyotes for you.

Of course they go after the easiest meal. They don't like getting the chit kicked out of them better than anyone else. In sufficient numbers (some expendable in the course of things), and if hungry enough, or if they can place the prey at a severe disadvantage - like crusted snow that will support a wolf's weight, but not that of an elk, deer, moose, etc) they can take down the most prime elk or moose in NA. It's gonna cost someone, maybe, but the rest eat. They just prefer not to go that route if they can avoid it . If desperate enough, without any special advantage, they can still often pul it off. They ain't dumb. And they are the most prolific large predator anywhere in the world.

We who live with wolves pretty much like them- to a point. Past that point, we don't like them as much.

Jacquest,God Bless. You are a busy man. Heard that this was a hellacious calving season, with the spring storms and all.

There is/was a reason our grandads took the wolf to near extinction...........and if they could hear those that actually want the wolf to come back....they'd roll in their graves after kicking those people in the teeth.

Sorry, but Lewis & Clark's journals are filled with accounts of hunting and eating elk all across the Great Plains long before reaching the Western Mountains. The'd eat elk in preference to deer, and there were more elk than deer to. Elk were once found clear into the Eastern states. It was farming of the Great Plains that pushed them into the mountains and off the plains. They cohabited with wolves all across their range, along with grizzly bear and other apex predators. Wolves did limit coyotes to what is now the far SW US and NW Mexico by killing them whenever the opportunity came up. However, now that we hunt elk, and deer and grizzly, the system is out of balance. The fix is not to remove man from the picture, but to manage the population of wolves. Hunting is an income producing method to do that. No animal in modern times that is hunted for sport has ever gone extinct. The animal rights nazis and other environmental extremists don't want to help the wolf, or any other animal. If they truly wanted to help, they'd buy hunting licenses. They really want to end hunting and run the country in such a way that our society devolves back to the 14th century. I prefer not to participate in that lunacy.

I'm with you, Sam. I very seldom leave the house without at least one rifle. While out wandering around the countryside, I meet up with a rancher or two and ask about shooting coyotes on their property. The answer has always been a yes and they subtly toss wolves in also, referring to them as "them bigger coyotes."

So far, wolves are pretty skimpy around here. Kinda hard to see.

Not sure if this was mentioned but the rancher caught this on film then the OFWD guys had to come out and confirm that it was wolves no kidding. He had installed a camera on his pasture.

What I wonder is what is the rancher to do even if he gets the warning and then sees wolves in his sheep pasture. Call TRH?

I read an article in the Bend Oregon "Bulletin" the other day that showed the ODFW officials standing next to the wolf that they thought was a part of the slaughter.
I was shocked as hell to find out they hadn't killed it. They tranquilized it then fit it with a radio collar and let it go!

KC

Maybe if we had Wolves here in WV, Coyotes wouldnt be a problem

You would simply realize how little of a problem the yotes really were

Among the ranches where I lived about thirty-five years ago, a single unidentified canine critter kept killing ranch stock just about every night � some, like pigs and sheep, just by running 'em to death.

Never ate a bite of any of 'em.

Traps didn't help. Bounty hunters had no luck. Fish & Game couldn't positively identify the tracks.

Finally, a rancher caught it in the act and shot it dead � a fairly little dog with abnormally big feet.

A couple of decades later, in the same area, another rancher went to prison for killing a dog that he caught killing his chickens.

Times have changed everywhere.

Wolves do WHAT???!!!........Geeeez.....




Casey

That's why coyotes didn't really exist east of the Mississippi until the eastern wolf was exterminated....




Casey

Me scratchee head too!

Of course, our grandads weren't too keen aobut restoring those grass eating deer and elk that compete with livestock graze either...............




Casey

Wolves kill what's available--and when it's older, sicker, dumber, or slower......it's more available than the others.

Most large predators, but especially wolves, can sense/see/understand what prey may be weaker than others, even when it's not so obvious to us.




Casey

True enough!That's why the ranchers put up a stone wall every time that elk reintroduction is proposed for BCs Cariboo district.The elk eat a lot of the grasses that their cattle graze for free on Crown land.They'd be better off though,maybe the evergrowing wolf polulation would eat the elk,instead of their range cattle! Monashee

Sooooo, if the North American elk became extinct because of wolves, where did we git the new elk? Russia?--can't be, they got wolves too. Mongolia?--nope, wolves there too. Canada!!!--oh wait....last I heard, our wolves are some strange Canadian breed of canine........



Casey

Most of these debates about how wolves select their prey seem to concentrate on elk and caribou - herd animals.
I've never seen a pack of wolves look at a moose and decide that moose was too healthy, they need to go find another one.

As a kid growing up in the 60's and 70's, and even till the mid 80's, ranchers screamed bloody murder about deer and elk eating all the forage.


Then prices of agriculture commodities dropped big, and many of these same ranchers saw their way through lean times by leasing out hunting as outfitting for elk really took off.

Some years, elk made more money for the rancher than cows or sheep.

It will take a generation or so, but I wouldn't be surprised if outfitted wolf hunting won't become a way to make a bit of money on the side for ranchers in the Northern Rockies........



Casey

Major problem in your logic casey is those folks hunt wolves and manage them we're not allowed to.

When I was working on a cougar study on the Western Slope, a cougar killed 21 sheep in one night near Rifle, Colorado......in the case of cougars, most likely it was a female, with juvenile/sub-adult cubs. The younger cougars are often big enough to kill fairly easy prey like sheep, and don't know when to stop, it seems it's like a game to them......

The study unit we were on had 350,000 hed of sheep grazing on it all or part of the year. Cougars killed on average 45 head of sheep each year. But sheep were like Lay's Potato Chips--cougars couldn't kill just one.

Most of the 45 head of domestic sheep killed each year came in bunches--3, 4, or 10 head in one attack.

So all it took was say, less than a dozen cougar attacks each year to account for 45 head of sheep killed each year in the study unit. That's out of 350,000 head of sheep, and 100-150 adult cougars in the unit.

That's roughly one cougar killed sheep out of every 1000 head of sheep--heck more sheep than that fell in ditches and broke their neck each year........

But the local newpapers would feature front page stories every time there were mulitple sheep killed. And it would give the impression sheep were dying like flies across Western Colorado..........

Same with bears. And it will be the same with wolves.

Those ranchers who take care of their livestock tend to have very few losses from predators. Those who don't get out of their pickups very often though..........



Casey

Or Dick Cheney with a shotgun......did anybody check for empty quail load hulls?.........



Casey

No problem with my logic. We need to hunt and manage wolves here too......and the quicker we start managing them like a another game animal the better.....


But I don't see your connection between my response and the poster's statement.




Casey

Coyotes keep the kitty cat and poodle populations under control.......



Casey

Not directed to you, Casey, necessarily, but

Why does it matter if a predator kills for sport (blood lust)? It's a wild animal doing what wild animals sometimes do.

BTW the reason wolves didn't wipe out every animal is that the limiting factor on wolves is other wolves - in primeval settings without human impact, anyway.

Nah--it's the sheep loving media!!!.....

Oh wait--the media loves wolves too.

So... the wolves love to eat sheep, the media loves sheep and wolves, and so then we would have a.....oh, never mind...



Casey

Maybe.

But whether you like it or not, predators are going to take the easy prey.....



Casey

See?!--the smart ones get away!!!

You're way ahead of me Hawk--wish Id've thought of that!!!!



Casey

...if opportunity defines easy.

Predators rarely kill more than they can eat--usually they do't kill enough to eat--or barely enough.

Which is why it's notable when predators kill more than they can obviously eat--it's an exception--and it will make the headlines.


Man bites dog kinda' thing......



Casey

It means they ain't good enough to survive.

Survival of the fittest works both ways, you know.....




Casey

Happy to take the heat off of ya', W4B.

So this means you owe me, right?,,,,,,



Casey

Totally not true a Neighbor of a friend in Montana had 11 wolves kill 33 sheep on his ranch. They ate three. The next day when the pack was taken out they had killed 25 more sheep on the adjoining ranch.

I grew up on a ranch in the Uncompahgre Valley on the West Slope. The BLM land adjacent to our ranch was prime winter habitat, and our alfafa fields were often covered up with deer and elk--and when harsh winters occurred, it was FULL of starving wildlife.

Even then, coyotes never messed with deer until they were too weak to even stand up. And they NEVER messed with live elk.

Did watch a Golden eagle make a couple passes at a doe one time.....kinda' cool.



Casey

Which is why it's notable in it's rarity.

Remember, there are millions of cattle and sheep in the Rockies. There are tens of thousands of large predators.

Those livestock and predators come into contact with one another hundreds, maybe thousands, of times each day. And yet, the combined number of large predators killing sheep and cattle amount to a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of contacts between predators and livestock.

You got a equal chance of being broadsided at the intersection going to the store for a gallon of milk......


Casey

Dont worry Hawk, my Wildlife degree is from CSU.


Toltecgriz, Decker was a professor of mine.........

Casey

Hawk overstated it when he used the word only.

But now you just did the same thing when you used the word frequently





Now that's an overstatement.

The reason we see wolf packs averaging roughly 8-15 wolves is that's appears to be optimum for successfully killing large critters on a regular basis--thereby ensuring some continuity in the pack.

A few wolves running together would be hard pressed to kill healthy, adult, elk sized prey with much regularity.


Casey

Since most hunters like to eat what they shoot, we'll probably have to wait for the Asian economy to make a big comeback before this becomes a reality.

In Colorado, you now have to technically eat everything you shoot. Meaning you better take the meat from that cougar home with you.......

I tend to draw the line with prairie dogs though.......



Casey

And just which wolf advocate web site or fairy tail booklet did you read this nonsense?

Wade thruogh the thread--you'll figure it out........




Casey

Thinking lots of boys here have never seen them run healthy critters out onto the ice.

Big fluffy pads work much better on ice than hoofs.

The problem today is man. Those that love to spew [bleep] about there being a 'balance' was before men moved in. If the wolves knock the deer's dicks into the dirt they can just turn to livestock, dogs, cats etc. An option that weren't previously available in the 'balanced' years.

Arguing this subject is like the 308 VS 30-06 threads, they are point less and lead nowhere.

Some of us realize the seriousness of the wolf/elk situation, and some live with "Dances with wolves" mentality.

If you can't shoot them, drown'em out..........

Right On, Sam

I personally believe that everyone of those [bleep] sons of bitches found outside of the park should have the exact rights as the coyotes.

[bleep] 'em!

My thoughts are several "FMJ" in the guts and let'm run off to die.

True. But not frequent. Smart prey don't often run to the ice, dumb prey are more likely to.




True. But nobody on here is advocating wolves NOT be managed just like every other critter.....

Today, ALL wildlife management is really People Management..........

Casey

If they was smart they wouldn't be prey in the first place, they would be predators.

Pretty hard to turn around in SE Alaska without being on ice. Not to mention all the 'dumb' animals moving beach side when the snow is neck deep.

Don't blame a wolf for being a wolf but it's an unnatural act for predators to want more predators.

One only needs to spend some air time to see just how 'infrequent' ice kills are. Looks like Ice Capades meets Leatherface

Having lived, camped, and hunted in some of the highest wolf densities in North America I think a lot of comments here are pansified.

As for prey selection, wolves having more success killing the young or weak is a biological fact, especially with larger animals such as moose and elk. Biologists have long settled on the amount of fat in the animal's bone marrow as the indicator of the animal's overall health. Changes in body fat can happen for many reason with many of them short term. A reduction in marrow fat is bad news and a clear sign of a weakened animal.

The majority of large animals killed by wolves have reduced marrow fat, in spite of such animals being an overall minority in the population.

Folks need to see more calves being pulled from the mother half way through the birthing process.

Not sure what the marrow levels are on those, since all the bones are eaten on the veal snack.

And later on, you stoop so low as to call them "predators." So what are they in your mind,"game animals" or "predators?"

It's beyond time that they should be considered as some kind of gods or "game animals" and be hunted like the predators they really are.

Spent a large part of my stint in the Navy flying in Alaska......although I admit most of it was over water--frozen and unfrozen.......




Casey

Predators and prey are game animals--no different than say, bears.

You're not really making sense.



Casey

Sorry, I don't do squeamish.

And some are ignorant, and like it that way.....

Cool, and obviously things haven't changed in 30 years, as they never do.

Thinking much of it weren't spent flying SE either.

It ain't about squeamish, it's about BS arguments that folks use.

No, if they was predators they would have big teeth.....




Except when one of the predators are ostensibly sentient, thinking, beings...they should be able to think it through.


Wolves will be managed just like a game animal--and some folks will want less wolves, and some will want more.....


Casey

Yep, just like sensible gun control measures, since neither wolves nor guns are an emotional issue for the libs.

Turn a few packs loose in Central Park and downtown Denver and we'll talk.

Casey

I stand by what I said, but I suspect the disagreement has more to do with communication than ethology. If we were face to face, I think (I'm not sure) that we would eventually agree.

You do need to see the videos that Bill Hoppe has made of wolves vs. elk in Paradise Valley, Montana near the Park. Bill is a former guide/outfitter and a good guy. You would be interested to see three or four wolves pull down a big 7 point bull in the snow.

Patterns of Prey Selection by Wolves in Denali National Park, Alaska

The summary is here: Discussion

Learning to google from JO?

Nothing like guessing I guess

As much as I am pissed off about the situation.
It would be very hippocrittical for us to say we should kill all wolves considering the amount of big game that hunters hunters
wound and cannot find at all.
All the hunter is legally responsible for is a honest effort of looking,and no cancellation of tag.
So now you got a wounded animal that will more than likely fall to prey,and by a slim remote chance it does survive, it will definately be in pain and suffer.
Plus another animal will be legally shot by the same hunter responsible for wounding the first.
Thats double the amount right there.
Add up these numbers and they are way way higher than any other preditor kill.
Tourism gets hit, open seasons get affected, etc.
I not even going to get into poaching,but that adds a huge huge
environmental and economical effect as well.Yeah there is laws against it, but the punishment does not fit the crime especially when tourism gets hit,seasons get affected.
I personally think this pack should be reduced but to say every wolf should be shot on sight would be like saying, a tag should be cancelled for every wounded animal.
Cause seasons and tourism etc are affecected by my 2 brought forth reasons mentioned above as well.

A tag should be punched for a wounded animal and is required in some situations.

Don't understand the 'reintroduction' aspect of it. Hell, if they do manage to do the Jurassic park skeeter trick the fruitloops in NY and CA would want T-Rex reintroduced in Montana.

And most likely Casey

I still say [bleep] 'em all!

And [bleep] all the douchy libtard wolf lovers too!

Years back, there was a good article titled "Why otherwise rational people have irrational beliefs"

Predators in general, wolves being especially so, provokes a lot of emotions that are not based in any general reality.

Some folks want to attach a god-like status to wolves, others attach a devil-evil status to wolves. Niether is correct.

Wolves are here to stay for the foreseeable future. They will be managed. Wolves will be managed by sport hunting, and some depredation kills, and some culling by government. But they are here to stay, because a HUGE majority of people want them here, so we would be better off dealing with it.

Wolves have been around as long or longer than many of their large prey species in North America--those prey are well evolved to deal with predators like the wolf.

When folks make statements advocating eliminating wolves from the landscape, or advocating wolf populations less than needed to assure their survival, those who call themselves hunters lose credibility as wildlife conservationists/advocates in the eyes of the big majority. And that gives hunters a smaller voice instead of making them the leaders in wildlife management.

'Nuff said, I gotta go do something useful today--headed out to the Colorado Plateau gas fields for at least a few weeks, and will be incognito among the sagebrush and jackrabbits......


Casey

I'd have to--most likely you'd be beating a hasty retreat....




Casey

Look in the mirror lately my genius friend?

What is the best caliber for wolf?

Have to agree Sam...stupid bastards here outlawed lion hunting & the deer herd here is [bleep]. They haven't been hunted since the late 60's early seventies. It's kind of a not so unspoken rule amongst the guys I hunt with that if you see one, shoot it. The same will apply for any wolves that may seem inclined to migrate to my neck of the woods. I'm kinda seein a trend in the posts here...seems like a lot of the same guys thinking terrorists should be afforded the same rights as U.S. citizens are the same ones looking to protect wolves. A lot of areas have dog laws that allow landowners to shoot dogs that are harrassing livestock...WTF is so different here? Somebody posted earlier that our forefathers killed predators & vermin for a good reason...hell most had bounties paid on em. You bleeding heart guys crack me to [bleep] up.

Lets do it!!! Game on!!! For the wingshooters...pterodactyls.

Nahhh. I think Tyrannosaurs should be re-introduced into Central Park first and then USC Berzerkely next. Sabretooths into L.A.and Chicago. Wolves into every wealthy subdivision.

LOL just do a search on Montana wolf kills and you see it isn't fractional. Wolves kill for fun and way more than the need to eat. Anyone would has any intelligence or isn't a tree hugger knows that and admits it. You've been beating the bushes around here to support your Rocky Mountain Wolf Foundations agenda for over a year now. People in the know can see it for the BS it is. So go off into the corner and stroke your ego or what ever.

Heres another example numb nuts.

I wasn't in favor of the wolf reintroduction and I favor controlling wolves, but what does "Wolves kill for fun" have to do with it? Wolves are supposed to have a moral standard? If we're going to have them, it's part of the way it is.

Whatever's close

A juvenile brain creates juvenile name calling--a trait that really helps your credibility.


Casey

The first time I posted that link at the Campfire was in October 2003. I could google it for ya...

Speaking of name calling, you referred to me as "silly" because I don't agree with you. You sorta remind me of the kindergartners and first graders that I work with. Grow up.

Sad thing about this whole wolf thing is that the only people that have or ever will benefit from all the taxpayer money that has been wasted on this "project" are the brave government employees that have made such great sacrifices to preserve the regal wolf. How does this make any sense? The states that have wolf populations should hold a hunting season and benefit from the hunter license fees that will be collected. Wolves are not easy to hunt as they are very smart and quickly learn to stay away from people. It really is sad that a rancher cannot legally kill wolves that are killing his animals. There are other ways, though, to get rid of them and it probably will get started very soon. Hope so.

I think since they were forced upon us, EVERY major city and park should have several...along with a couple hundred sod rats. I also think they should make NYC, Chicago and LA wilderness areas.

These guys are right about where I figure they should be:

Them hides ain't from German shepherds, either.

BigBuck215, what other ways? Id be interested in why you just cant go hunt them with a gun or even a bow if your good If any animal kills a cow or calf on my farm, it does get hunted until its dead, nobody needs to know nothing. We dont have wolves here in WV but plenty of Coyote large cats ect.. Its open season on varmits in WV, you can actually hunt Coyote with a light until July here.

Well, the problem out here and in Wyoming and Idaho is that the penalty for killing a wolf is probably more severe than for killing a man. You can see from what is on this thread that there are a few around here, such as Alpinecrick or whatever, that would do anything they possibly can to help get a man convicted for defending his own livestock or perhaps his dog. So I have heard of snares being set in wolf country by some guys that are very good at what they do even though I do not know that for sure.

Others have sacrificed some dogs with mange and the other dog disease that is on about the same order as mange and I cannot think of what it is. More deadly than mange, I'm told. They know that the dog is going to die so the idea is to let the wolves tear it up therefore transmitting the sickness to the deserving wolves. Distemper. That's what it is. Supposed to be very effective and cheap. Not much chance of getting caught, either.

These are the rumors that are circulating around and very well might happen as ranchers and hunters, for the most part, are sick and tired of not being able to legally defend their own livestock. Hope it works although I would love to see open season declared. Not gonna happen, though.

I hear ya, some have tried the snares around here but most quite after catching dogs deer and other harmless animals, even checking them daily creates problems, Ive never been a fan myself. The spreading of a disease sounds like the easy way out but I still think a bullet and a closed mouth is better Be aware of transmitters and tags etc, Ive heard some stories about dead carcases being evidents, IF Found. We have to defend are farmland and take care of are almost helpless animals and pets. Ammo is still fairly inexpensive 20+ sheep - I wouldnt stop hunting!! Goodluck

Yeah, I don't like the snare idea. Hope things work out without using them. Gyess that is a last resort.

Bullets work, so I'm told.

Idaho Wolf Management - Current Status

Around here in east central MN the wolves tend to get mange from the coyotes that they kill at every opportunity. We have had wolves regularly around here now for several years and it's not uncommon to watch them doing their thing. A couple years ago I happened to watch one take down a 2 year old buck eating on a field. It was on a pretty windy day and the deer didn't know what hit it. It ate the front shoulder and never came back. For several years now any litters raised in the area will nearly always kill some livestock and the DNR moves in and traps and kills as many as they can, often from 4 to 7 and some more will move in after a few months. They are interesting and either not as intelligent as some say or are tolerant to some degree as the bear around here.

Coyotes like lambs as well as wolves do, and have no problems killing them either -- of course that don't make the news. I gotta wonder why nobody thinks they need to watch their livestock anymore.

I'd have no problems shooting a wolf or a coyote if it was after my stock. I just wouldn't tell anybody if it were a wolf. I sure wouldn't be bragging about losing 23 lambs while I was home watching tv. You have to be in the vicinity to get the job done though.

isn't it weird how wolves still get into our heads like no other animal? maybe its all the fairy tale stories....

...and plenty of those on this thread.

I think a lot of it is where you were raised. Wolves and black bears don't bother me, but when I was on your turf I kept worrying about alligators and poisonous snakes. I don't know how you Southern folk sleep at night...

I wonder how many coyote kills get recorded as wolf kills. I've seen claims against the Gov't for stock that was killed by wolves,(at least in the newspapers) I have a hunch that a bunch of these are settled for about what the stock is worth, plus some. (Who'd of ever guessed that the biggest cost of reintroducing wolves, was going to be paying for their dinners? Well, the wolves, some ranchers, and their lawyers, the other side's lawyers, and two kinds of activists, and their lawyers, as well, that is) They're not paying nuthin' for coyote kills, and coyotes kill way more livestock than wolves every year. I guess you could cry "wolf", Hmmm. I'm not saying that this incident is fake or anything like that, I just reckon there's got to be some of that going on too. One thing that I am sure of though, is that there seems to be plenty of hysteria on both sides of this issue, more than enough to go around.

Here's a headline you probably won't see too often . . .

"Lightning Slaughters 19 (+/-) Beeves"

I'll bet somebody already made some insurance money on this deal too, what do you think . . . ?

Lightning only got the ones that were dumb enough to stand by the fence anyway


Oh Yeah, and these cattle probably happen to be on National Forrest or BLM land, like 90% of the land in the Greater Yellowstone area is (If that is the case, the rancher more than likely only claimed that there were 5 cattle in this pasture to begin with) -- Seems lightning knows no boundaries.

It might be lucky for the rancher, and his lawyer, if some wolves would come by and chew on these critters so they could get in on the action too.

I know this saved a lot of elk food !!! ( I gotta wonder, if it got too risky to run any livestock up there, would there be more wolves and elk, and trout in the streams? I know it'd sure make beef more valuable for those of us that actually own our own pastures).

Welcome to the great outdoors boys !




Looks to me like a good place to set up in the trees and see if you could get a shot at a. . . an um . . . a coyote

That's one big pile of bait.

Must be an old one being as it's in black and white.

At least their easier to milk now.

Is that where sour cream comes from?

That's udderly silly....

Grow up...

Typing everything the bride says to you now........

I'm just glad she lets me have 1/2 hour of computer time each day.