# Photo of the Wolf



## Mark Horne (Oct 12, 2006)

//http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123772/Youre-Hunters-animal-rights-activists-war-words-cruel-pictures-wolves-traps-hit-internet.html

What a sad picture, don't know if I feel more sorry for the wolf or the smiling ******* who clearly married his sister.

Mark


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Your link doesn't work.

I'll say this, though. Wolves were exterminated in their former range for a reason.

Now that they've been reintroduced to some of their former range, people are rediscovering that they breed pretty rapidly and can actually be a bit of a pain in the ass.

For Europeans though (and dyed-in-the-wool American urbanites), they get all romantic about such things. Probably because they really haven't had their own unspoiled "wild" places for some time. I do empathize with that.

I also agree it's fun to make fun of trashy white people.

But let's keep the topics clear.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

No wolves around here, but plenty of coyotes (can hear them some nights from my house), free running dogs that attack livestock, and even reports of mountain lion. It's not good losing a lamb or calf, but that's the danger of farming and ranching. But there are things they can do to prevent predator attacks, such as guardian animals.

I just get mad at certain hunting lobby members (not all hunters in general, as quite a few of them get this) who claim the wolves are killing "their" deer and elk. As if their purchasing a tag just guarantees you to a deer without having to use any skill to find them. Folks with this sense of entitlement might want to stick with canned hunts. [-X Also, no wolf with any sense of self preservation is going to intentionally go after a strong and healthy trophy buck or bull elk if they can possibly help it. They actually improve the herd by going after the young, old, weak, and sick.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Robert Palmer said:


> Your link doesn't work.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cruel-pictures-wolves-traps-hit-internet.html


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Mark Horne said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cruel-pictures-wolves-traps-hit-internet.html
> What a sad picture ....



I agree.


----------



## Mark Horne (Oct 12, 2006)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cruel-pictures-wolves-traps-hit-internet.html

This should work, its the photo and context not the land management that's a worry.

Mark


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

I've never understood hating an animal so much that you could smile while one clearly suffers. 

Sick and sad.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> They actually improve the herd by going after the young, old, weak, and sick.


You mean MOSTLY the young, and the EASY, i.e. domestic livestock. How does removing the young improve the herd? It _decimates_ it, and eventually _obliterates_ it.

I've got plenty enough here, on all sides of me. They're very territorial of dogs, and folks north and south of me from 10 to 20 miles away have lost their dogs due to wolf attacks. One neighber three miles south of me has lost a few cats (right in the driveway and even on the porch!), but cats don't really count, ha ha.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

If mama elk cow isn't watching her calf closely and they get separated or if the calf or fawn is not vigorous and cannot keep up with the herd, that's what happens. Survival of the fittest. Decimates and obliterates? I'm pretty sure the elk, bison, moose, deer, pronghorn, musk ox, and other ungulates were not imported by the Europeans and their populations were appropriately kept in check by wolves and other predators long, long before the Europeans showed up. They didn't need "management." But that's how ecology works: there's good forage, so the deer population goes up. There's now more food for the wolves, so the wolf population goes up. The herd numbers start to go down either with less forage or with more wolves and then so does the wolf population. It's not a real super abstract concept.

There's also talk in the cattle world that we've made the average beef cow too soft so they cannot shift for themselves with protecting their offspring. There's probably some truth to that, as the average Angus steer or heifer just sits in the feedlot blankly and has nothing to worry about except walking ten steps to the waterer or the feed bunk. As for people's pets, if they want to live in Wyoming, Colorado, or Montana to get into the wide and wild open spaces, they should expect there to be wildlife, including predators, and have the sense not to turn their cats out or let their dogs roam if they don't want the the risk of them killed. That happens out here in rural Missouri too. People move out to the country and get 5 acres, turn their dogs and cats loose so they have "room to run" but are completely surprised if they get attacked by coyotes, get into fights with other dogs, eat poison bait, get hit by cars, or get shot at for chasing or killing livestock (or get kicked by said livestock). It's not like Lassie, folks...


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Here's a recent study of wolves in Germany, may be of interest..

Zoologists from the Senckenberg Research Institute in Görlitz in Germany probed the feeding habits of wolves in the first eight years since their re-emergence. The team assessed both what wolves currently eat and how their feeding habits have changed over the years. Their results indicate wolves have a high capacity for adapting in order to meet their dietary needs. 
Wolves had been wiped out in Germany for many years. However, they are slowly making their way back. 
"The dietary habits of wolves has been the greatest point of contention with their return to Germany and it induced us to examine in closer detail the feeding habits of the wolves that migrated to Lusatia over 10 years ago," says Hermann Ansorge, head of the Zoology Department at the Senckenberg Museum of Natural History in Görlitz. "We took a look at what was on the menu for the wolves and how this has changed since the appearance of wolves in East Germany."
The team gathered and tested more than 3,000 samples of wolf scat for undigested evidence of the animals' prey, including bones, hair, hooves and teeth. The data show that wild ungulates represented more than 96% of the wolves' prey, and the majority of these were roe deer (55.3%), followed by red deer (20.8%) and wild boar (17.7%). Hares accounted for almost 3% of prey. 
Less than 1% of the prey investigated was of livestock origin, says Ansorge, adding: "As long as sheep and other livestock are well protected and there is a sufficient supply of wild animals, the wolves will not risk confrontation with electric fences and guardian dogs.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-wolves-german-livestock.html


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

The longest known study of wolves in the wild...on Isle Royale. It's a very interesting read.

http://isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/at_a_glance.html


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Another "expert" who has probably never even seen a wolf outside of a sanctuary. Have you ever seen elk giving birth, when not seconds after the calf touches ground, the wolves emerge from the treeline, running her off and snatching it up? A DOZEN and more of those in a single morning, you think they'd be full, huh? When the herd's survival rate is almost ZERO, where will the wolves go next...? And only endangered predators deserve protection? Survival of the fittest, more like survival of the most insanely legislated, and the species totally lacks the ability to conserve their OWN resources. Hungry wolves then take more extreme measures...


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Pronghorn are definitely not on the menu, too fast in open fields and hills, and that's where the coyotes have been pushed off to. Musk ox? Are you kidding?


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

> Survival of the fittest, more like survival of the most insanely legislated,


Bingo.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

You don't need to be an expert to understand very simple ecology that a seventh grader should be able to explain. If there are too many prey and not enough predators, the prey animals will starve. If there are too many predators and not enough prey, the predators will starve. The Isle Royale situation is pretty classic for this. In years where the moose numbers are low, the wolf population will cycle behind it and likewise will fall. Same thing happened in Yellowstone when there were no wolves and there was too many elk and deer and they were starving.

Wolves, like dogs, are opportunists and if can grab an older or injured pronghorn, they would. I have seen wild pronghorn and running as fast as they do and if they stepped in a prairie dog hole, they'd be toast. And yes, musk oxen doing the very thing I was talking about with letting a calf get separated when they panic and run. When they stand and fight, the wolves look for easier targets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5I_3i6tIhI

If the cow elk is far enough from the rest of the herd that they are actually getting picked off like you describe, she lost the protection of the herd and doesn't get her genes passed on. Not surprising there and probably not a bad thing for the health of the elk herd long term either.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

The predators don't _just _starve. And they don't go eating grass in people's yards. They start looking for alternative food sources.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

So I guess I should be worried about the pair of wolf tracks 100 meters from my house that I followed on my dog walking route this morning?

There are a shit tonne of ungulates here. Elk galore, deer, moose, you name it. I have come across several elk babies in my time stashed in the grass, being as still as possible that had yet to be snatched up by wolves or any predator. Same with baby deer. Once on a training dog search, my friend's dog actually stepped right on a baby elk while searching, and just kept going! 

Those wolves whose tracks I followed ARE hungry, they had dug up some old bones and such. I saw their tracks a week ago about 10 km away, but they have yet to eat my dogs or any livestock from the area.

Conditions are in the predators favour in this melt freeze cycle, when the wolves can walk on top of the snow, but the ungulates are punching through the crusty deep. I am thinking that healthy adults could get taken down in these conditions.

Next the bears are going to wake up hungry...the cougars are always hungry and always awake! FOR SURE baby animals get killed every spring here...cougars love them some baby moose! All just normal stuff in this valley, but we should probably just shoot them all. 

I am not against hunting and trapping at all, both are normal and common in this valley. I am not against people protecting their dogs or livestock either. But you know what takes out a lot more dogs than predators around here? Traps. You know what takes a lot more than traps...cars.

I live pretty close to MT, but it is a very different ecosystem I think. Maybe much more of an issue where Daryl is, just wanted to say that not everywhere is like that.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Very simple. You wanted to live an idyllic lifestyle with the mountains and the forest and not many people around. It shouldn't be rocket science that there may be bears going through your trash (so you make sure you don't leave trash bags out) or raccoons or rats in the barn (so you put your animal feed in chew proof containers). Make sure you keep your pets contained and if you have livestock, beef up your fences and and get guardian animals so they are not as much of a target. If you don't like it, maybe it's best to move back to the safety of the big city.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't know. Do you have any soft targets?

Elephants screw with people's farms in Asia.

Leopards screw with people's livestock and pets Africa.

Deer f****ed my apple trees UP.

Heck, a squirrel destroyed my bird feeder. 

Are "majestic" and less populous north american animals incapable of being a nuisance to anyone?

Or should it be legilsated that nobody can feel inconvenienced by them? Cuz pretty.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Maren,

If ranchers and farmers always had to walk on eggshells around every pest (including the pretty ones), everyone in the city would starve. Or at least lose weight. It would increase the eye candy for dudes, but...chix would have a harder time eating their feelings. And we know THAT'S not going to be accepted anytime soon.

_If you don't like the aphids, you shouldn't have put your lettuce there! ******* LOSER!_


----------



## Tessa Larson (Dec 10, 2011)

There is a vast scientific literature on predator-prey relationships. This covers not just wolves preying on deer or elk, but a huge range of species. In case after case, we find that predators can benefit prey populations by reducing the spread of pathogens (diseases and parasites) and by reducing competition from other herbivores. The issue is one of balance. Under what conditions do benefits outweigh costs? _Under what conditions, if any, do wolves or bears indirectly help more deer or elk survive than these predators kill?_

For those interested, This http://www.alaskadispatch.com/artic...e-moose-wolves-and-bears-or-insects-and-hares is a good article on predator prey dynamics. 

As for livestock predation- there are ways to mitigate this. Cruelty is never justified. 

I agree that wolves are a greater threat to my dogs than bears or any other form of wildlife. It is a concern for me. This is partly why I am working vey hard to have 100% recall. I also do not allow my dogs to roam. I'm guessing that traps and snares kill more dogs than wolves do in areas where large mammals are regularly trapped. Unless you are 100% sure what happened to your dog, a dog that disappears in wolf country may have succoumbed to numerous hazards (or found a new home).


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Robert Palmer said:


> _If you don't like the aphids, you shouldn't have put your lettuce there! ******* LOSER!_


I think we should outlaw cars here because they kill to many elk and deer. It is a slaughter I can assure you.

Or maybe we should just kill all the deer and elk, because they keep effing up my truck!


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Robert Palmer said:


> Are "majestic" and less populous north american animals incapable of being a nuisance to anyone?
> 
> Or should it be legilsated that nobody can feel inconvenienced by them? Cuz pretty.



No, but there are some things to be done to help both people be less inconvenienced and the pretty wildlife less dead. Simple common sense shit. Farmers protecting their livelihood is one thing. Tourists leaving their garbage on the front porch when their "party weekend in the mountains" is over is another.

I think it is worth trying to live with wild wildlife around in places that still have it. I like it. I would like the next generation to experience what it feels like to see a grizzly bear that isn't in a zoo, or on a flag of a state that doesn't have any more. Worth teaching another generation about tracking and hunting and wilderness and so on.

For sure the "pretty" animals get all the hype. Nobody cares about the western skink...

but I do8)


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

I read the same thing somewhere, that the live stock murdering wolf is a bit exgeratted. Hey ask wisconsin how thier deer population out of control because of the removal of the wolf. Wolves serve a purpose in the ego system. We worry about things like the asian carp running the eco-system, or snakes in the everglades...what a bunch of BS...trust me, the Earth is an efficient machine. The zebra muscle entered the great lakes and everyone freaked out. Turns out, they are best thing to happen to the Great Lakes. They are a filter feeder and they are cleaning the Lakes. When Humans try to control Mother Nature...we make a mess of it.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

That's most of the problem right there; the wolves have garnered all the attention from sympathizers, and so the activist organizations and lawyers and everyone else wants their piece of the cash cow pie. Never mind throwing everything else out of equilibrium.

The "recovery" plan numbers were reached by more than a few years ago, and the population has grown about +40% per year ever since, while management efforts got continuously hung up in legislative delays.

Wolves carry disease and sickness just as much as you'd like to hope that they eradicate it (which they don't). And wolves, being opportunists, don't "just starve". Like you say, it's "simple" that a 7th could get it. They go find the NEXT easiest prey to eat.

It just opens the door for a whole new set of very serious problems on a much broader scale than your fancy little imagination appearantly allows. But WTF do I care, your emotions and $$$ set the policy, as you're just a tool for someone else's agenda.

Dealing with nature's the easy part; I only have to survive a world full of people who can't think for themselves.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> ...
> 
> The "recovery" plan numbers were reached by more than a few years ago, and the population has grown about +40% per year ever since, while management efforts got continuously hung up in legislative delays.
> ,,,,,.


Where did you get the "grown about +40% per year ever since" info?


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

I wouldn't be surprised if it was 40% growth, and if there were tens of thousands of them, that would be a lot new wolves every year. But when pack members are counted and if they number in the teens it's a big pack, with each state having only a few packs if any, it's easy to get 40% growth and still not add up to a whole heck of a lot.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Iron county wisconsin alone has 6 packs. Well, did....last I checked.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Oh, there's a lot. The original "recovery" plan called for 10 breeding pairs in each the the states of MT, ID, and WY (30 pairs).

The 40% growth rate was a figure taken from a european study (yes, they are having their bitches too, now), and doesn't really apply here. Here's some old data on hand that shows the wolf population here was nevertheless doubling at a very rapid rate. I think it was 2009 when there was an epidemic of canine parvo that wiped out a good portion of the GYA (Greater Yellowstone Area) packs. Park population growth met full saturation in 2010, leading to interpack territorial fighting, which saw to the elimination of the heavily publicized "Druid Pack". The other abbreviations are N.W. Montana and Central Idaho.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> That's most of the problem right there; the wolves have garnered all the attention from sympathizers, and so the activist organizations and lawyers and everyone else wants their piece of the cash cow pie. Never mind throwing everything else out of equilibrium.
> 
> The "recovery" plan numbers were reached by more than a few years ago, and the population has grown about +40% per year ever since, while management efforts got continuously hung up in legislative delays. Wolves carry disease and sickness just as much as you'd like to hope that they eradicate it (which they don't).


The wild elk, deer, and bison that carry chronic wasting disease, tuberculosis, brucellosis, Corynebacterium pyogenes, Campylobacter fetus, bluetongue virus and other diseases are probably a bigger threat to both livestock health and the health of people than wolves. Yet I'm fairly certain the hunter lobbies would scream bloody murder if you suggested they cull huge herds of elk for CWD. Since just about all vaccinated dogs are protected from distemper and parvo, this is not an issue unless you let your dogs run around loose. They'd be much more likely to get it from other dogs than wolves. The main disease that could be passed to humans is rabies and that certainly is not unique to wolves. Bats, skunks, raccoon, foxes, coyotes, and so are on are a bigger hazard since they are much more likely to live close to humans than wolves are. Compared to coyotes who don't mind living in close proximity to humans (and are very good at it!), wolves do not like living near humans and are a much more shy species by nature. 



> And wolves, being opportunists, don't "just starve". Like you say, it's "simple" that a 7th could get it. They go find the NEXT easiest prey to eat.


Then very simple! Don't raise a flashing "Eat at Daryl's" sign on your property for the wolves. Don't let your pets run free and adequately protect your stock with good fences and guardian animals.



> It just opens the door for a whole new set of very serious problems on a much broader scale than your fancy little imagination appearantly allows. But WTF do I care, your emotions and $$$ set the policy, as you're just a tool for someone else's agenda.
> 
> Dealing with nature's the easy part; I only have to survive a world full of people who can't think for themselves.


Can't think for themselves? Oh really? Let's think about this critically, shall we? Has zero to due with emotion and everything to do with very basic science that we've known for decades. Wolves are one of the top extant predators in North America for the past 10,000+ years having co-existed and co-evolved with all those ungulate species for millennia. And yet Lewis and Clark first set foot in the west 200 years ago. So wait...let's think about this...who throws off the equilibrium now? 

So usually the people who want the wolves gone fit into one of three camps:

1) hunters who think they are killing their trophy bucks
2) ranchers who don't want to spend more money to protect their stock
3) people who got their pets eaten because they let them run free

Which are you?


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Unless my reading skills are way off, I see very, very little evidence on your graph of any regular 40% increase.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

The wolves should be of no concern in Montana until they get the meth problem under control! The worst state for Meth! Meth heads are known to lie and fabricate stories! A calf falls ill and a wolf eats it, and stories begin! I just can't tell what's true so until the meth problem is gone.....


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Skip Morgart said:


> Where did you get the "grown about +40% per year ever since" info?


On your chart..for the last 3 years (05 to 08 in the Greater Yellowstone Area), the increases are about 30%, 15.4%, and 9.3%.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

Robert Palmer said:


> Iron county wisconsin alone has 6 packs. Well, did....last I checked.


6 packs of 2-3 wolves still isn't a whole lot of wolves.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Eric Read said:


> 6 packs of 2-3 wolves still isn't a whole lot of wolves.


Most of the other counties monitored had quite a few less than 6 packs also. Some only had 1 or 2.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I have no problem with trapping critters of any sort but to take a pic with a big $#!+ eating grin and the critter obviously suffering in the back ground is trailer trash at it's best!
Any trapper worth his salt make a quick, humane kill.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Like I said, the 40% growth figure was for a european area, France to be specific I think. Ranchers here are permitted to protect their livestock by shooting wolves, unlike europeans. We also had government trappers "managing" problem animals, and I don't know what europe does. But still, 1600 wolves in 2008 is a far cry from 30 breeding pairs, or 300 total wolves, that the original plan called for. Before there was $$$ to be made, and "further studies" to be done.

Maren, I'm none of the above, but I've got your category figured.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I would like to hunt that dude, i reckon I could make him soil his pants.

Surprised those traps are still legal, we gotta use cage traps under licence and dispatch the animal humanely with a rifle??


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Skip Morgart said:


> The longest known study of wolves in the wild...on Isle Royale. It's a very interesting read.
> 
> http://isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/at_a_glance.html


Their numbers have been dwindling...

http://kdal610.com/news/articles/2012/mar/26/isle-royale-wolf-population-is-shrinking/


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

This is both an informative, as well at times, an entertaining read..

Cry Wolf!: Narratives of Wolf Recovery in France and Norway†

Abstract Due to strict protection through the last decades, wolves have returned to many areas from which they have been absent for a long time. This is a conservation success story, but the wolves also cause conflicts wherever they arrive. We have studied the situation in southeastern Norway and in the French Alps, where the conflict patterns are similar. Diverging interpretations of the situation are supported by narratives, and two varieties have become increasingly significant in both countries. Rumors about the secret reintroduction of wolves are common among wolf adversaries. Another narrative, important to the pro-wolf camp, is based on the notion that particular sheep husbandry practices (unattended rough grazing) are unique to either Norway or France—whereas there are in fact more similarities than differences. Yet, while the reintroduction-conspiracy rumors are ridiculed, the notion of unique national conflict patterns has achieved a status almost of official truth. Furthermore, the story about natural wolf recovery is itself a value-laden narrative, and not only “scientific fact.” The different status of these narratives tell us something about power relations: Given their different social basis, it seems relevant to consider the national uniqueness image and the natural recovery theory as tightly interwoven with _symbolic power_ and the reintroduction conspiracy rumors as similarly interwoven with _patterns of cultural resistance._

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1526/003601108783575916/abstract


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Value laden narrative of the symbolic power relationship........blah blah blah, what sort of commie liberal arts BS u readin???


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Decide for yourself Peter.

The link to the above article ...

Cry Wolf!: Narratives of Wolf Recovery in France and Norway


http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/37/04/45/PDF/Article_Cry_wolf_absolutely_final.pdf


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Sure that will happen.........when I finished eating this dictionary and turn gay


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> That's most of the problem right there; the wolves have garnered all the attention from sympathizers, and so the activist organizations and lawyers and everyone else wants their piece of the cash cow pie. Never mind throwing everything else out of equilibrium.
> 
> The "recovery" plan numbers were reached by more than a few years ago, and the population has grown about +40% per year ever since, while management efforts got continuously hung up in legislative delays.
> 
> ...


I am not against the culling of wolves if growth is out of control. Nor against the culling of deer or other ungulates and such when they get ridiculous.

We have no bounty on wolves here because there is not an over abundance of them, but we do have a wolf hunting season and in my region there is a bag limit. I am not personally into hunting stuff I wont eat, but I am glad to live in a place that has enough carnivores that they can be hunted by those who choose to do so.

My point was only that there are ecosystems were wolves are not spinning out of control, snatching all the babies, so no ungulates can live. Just wanted to make the point that wolves are not the destructors of every ecosystem that they are a part of.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Eric Read said:


> 6 packs of 2-3 wolves still isn't a whole lot of wolves.


It's more than what you assumed. 2-3 packs in a state? Pff. 

_A minimum count of 690-733 wolves was obtained in Wisconsin in late winter 2009-2010 (Table 1)._
_Average size of 143 northern packs (zone 1) was 3.7 to 3.9 wolves, 25 Central Forest packs_
_(zone 2) was 4.0 to 4.2 wolves, and 13 west and central Wisconsin packs (zone 3) was 3.5 to_
_3.7 wolves per pack (Table 1). A total of 15 wolves were identified as lone wolves, but the total_
_number of lone wolves across the state was probably underestimated._


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Robert Palmer said:


> It's more than what you assumed. 2-3 packs in a state? Pff.
> 
> _A minimum count of 690-733 wolves was obtained in Wisconsin in late winter 2009-2010 (Table 1)._
> _Average size of 143 northern packs (zone 1) was 3.7 to 3.9 wolves, 25 Central Forest packs_
> ...




OK...even 800 in an entire state doesn't sound like a tremendous amount. Most of the studies I've seen say that people can take very simple steps to minimize any stock/pet predation.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

The point is that the liberal media has done a good job of implying that wolves are always going to be on the brink of collapse, because everything in nature is just so FRAGILE.

Eric thought Wisconsin had just a few packs, for god's sake.

Wolves steer clear of people...when possible.

Wolves will take deer instead of a dog....when possible.

Not disputing any of that.

But when people act like there's some sort of shortage...it's time to get real.

When the U.S. wanted wolves back, I vaguely remember Canada authorities saying something like: "Are you sure? No, really, ARE YOU SUUUURE?"

Every introduction has vastly exceeded expectations.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

no I didn't think WI had just a few packs, I live here and hunt here. They have a few hundred, most in the 2-3 member range. Most counties don't have any and when you go south to IL how many packs? how about IA? IN? MO? GA?


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

They haven't been re-introduced there Eric. It's not because any MODERN people killed them off, or that the environment isn't clement (though it's probably not anymore).

This back pedaling is unbecoming.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

backpedaling? because I didn't let you put words in my mouth? 

and FYI, wolves were never re-introduced in WI either


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Well, here in the MT/WY/ID area, the wolves had grown about at a rate of 19% per year, or "doubling" every four years. Things have tapered off the last few years, with the wolf hunting programs. MT pop. is still steadily growing, WY numbers steadied, and ID numbers have declined. Overall, for a fairly light increase in each of the last few years.

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Population Trends
By State 
By Recovery Area

One thing that seems a little confusing to me, is the number of packs versus the number of "breeding pairs". I'm guessing there's an average of 5 to 7 wolves in a average pack in the recovery area. With about 1700 wolves, and roughly 260 packs, I'm surprised there's only about 105 breeding pairs.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Robert Palmer said:


> They haven't been re-introduced there Eric. It's not because any MODERN people killed them off, or that the environment isn't clement (though it's probably not anymore).
> 
> This back pedaling is unbecoming.


Don't give too many props to the MODERN people for NOT having killed them off. MODERN people HAVE decimated many different animals throughout the world, including here in the US (and the wolf not too long ago). I'm not a fan of any wildlife becoming an uncontrollable nuisance, but YOU keep saying that the numbers are too high, but you have no response when methods are mentioned to deal more humanely with the interactions. Wildlife management (including killing them when done humanely) is always part of the puzzle, but I think there are exaggerations on both sides.
But back to the wolf and the "trapper" in the video...that nutjob guy should be thrown in jail.


----------



## todd pavlus (Apr 30, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Just wanted to make the point that wolves are not the destructors of every ecosystem that they are a part of.


Your right......That would be the human species that destroys every ecosystem they are a part of. People have this odd sense that the earth belongs only to them, and they can do whatever they want to it without consequence. It funtioned just fine before we came along and F'd everything up. 

You are lucky to live in such a beautiful place, and I can tell you appreciate it.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I think shipping a good size lot of them off to Isle Royale would be a great idea, for starters. With the MT wolf population still growing at 15% WITH hunting management in place, that still doubles the total population every FIVE years!

What? They're not the same wolves as Isle Royale's, you say? Entirely different subspecies? Well, so were the wolves that were "reintroduced".

One good thing to come of it perhaps, is the need for more livestock guardian dogs. At least to fend off the smaller, european type wolves. LGD's in my area don't last long. Dogs with REAL jobs to perform, not riding around in the back seat of some cushy cruiser, ha ha.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Skip Morgart said:


> Don't give too many props to the MODERN people for NOT having killed them off. MODERN people HAVE decimated many different animals throughout the world, including here in the US (and the wolf not too long ago). I'm not a fan of any wildlife becoming an uncontrollable nuisance, but YOU keep saying that the numbers are too high, but you have no response when methods are mentioned to deal more humanely with the interactions. Wildlife management (including killing them when done humanely) is always part of the puzzle, but I think there are exaggerations on both sides.
> But back to the wolf and the "trapper" in the video...that nutjob guy should be thrown in jail.


Where did I say they were "too" anything?


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Eric Read said:


> backpedaling? because I didn't let you put words in my mouth?
> 
> and FYI, wolves were never re-introduced in WI either


That's what they want you to think.


----------

