Another Wolf

It seems no body ever thinks of the poor animals that these wolfs kill and eat - you see them eating an animal alive - they are chewing on the back end while the front of the animal show that it is still alive - really when you come to think of it - what good does putting wolfs back into Yellow Stone or anyother place - if there were too many elk or deer let the hunters keep them in check - getting shot by a 30-06 is a far better way to die then being eaten alive -

Yeah, cause that works so well anywhere, ever... :P That's why they have major deer overpopulation, you know, everywhere. And why the elk in Yellowstone were properly controlled before wolf reintroduction and all that. All those hunters out there properly controlling the game were so effective! I especially like all those ones the ones that only target the weak, sick or old animals instead of going for the biggest, healthiest, strongest and most impressive animals around. Such noble and effective beasts those hunters are.

*sigh*

/end sarcasm

Unless the hunter does not get off a kill shot and leaves them to die in agony.

This is the real world, death is ugly, killing all predators to make it palatable to some is a bizzarre concept.

__________________

Do ANY predators from say...domestic cats and dogs on up, kill cleanly? Do we exterminate all predators then? Get rid of lions, tigers, bears, skunks, weasels, raccoons?...Because none of these kill kindly.

It will take a lot of hunters hunting things like mice and bugs to take the place of all the predators in our ecosystem.

Yes, and we will have to start with humans because we don,t which ones will kill cleanly.

__________________

Who will supply the maps and transportation to get the wolves to the wild hogs that are a problem. I suppose those wolves would not eat any domestic hogs or sheep if the wild variety was not at hand. My guess is the wolves eating wild hogs are not the ones people will be shooting.

The concern by animal rights groups is not for the wolves devouring cattle or sheep that people see killing livestock and then shoot. However, people like Haypoint and the OP have suggested that wolves, in general, are a problem and should all be shot and driven off and should simply not exist "around them". But there are an awful lot of people saying "I'll kill them if they're on my property. They can be anywhere else all they want." even if there isn't any evidence that the wolves are causing real problems. Because if there WAS evidence, FWS would compensate them for their losses, shoot, or relocate the pack.
So yeah, I think we can all agree that it's OK and should be OK to shoot an animal that is actively killing your livestock. The problem is most of these people are so bug eyed paranoid by the word "wolf" that they're going to go out of their way to kill anything canine that ever sets foot on their property and encourage others to break federal law in doing the same so they can all be "wolf free". Instead of just putting up a bit better fences, slapping up some cameras or even planting some freakin' pricker bushes to keep the wolves out... Which would probably keep out most of the other things eating their livestock that they're blaming on wolves too. :P

Electrified fladry lines (turbo fladry) has had good results in the west.

No, the experts aren't saying probably not. They are saying that the elements are incomplete to require they pay the farmer. verifiable wolf print at the kill and you must have a body. Completely eaten or missing doesn't count. If I lost three sheep in one day, and located one body in the woods 100 yards from my fence with a wolf print at that scene, I get paid for one sheep. Can't find the others, no pay.
How is it that if we start killing animals, we get over run with deer, elk, coyotes, and wild boar, but the song birds, fish, frog and trees go away. I am not following your futuristic evolutionary disaster.

Then you have never studied the Yellowstone project or even looked at a little info blurb or pamphlet.

In Yellowstone, where they had large amounts of hunting and strong efforts to control ungulate populations by hunting, guns, even poison, they saw an extreme decimation in certain plants. In particular, young trees and shrubs could not get enough hold to grow before being eaten, especially around bodies of water. This led to the erosion of stream banks and there was no new growth forest so only a few tree species who could get their seeds far enough away, namely oaks and pines, could propagate. The erosion of the stream banks ended up killing off most of the grasses and reeds that are prime nesting grounds for many species of birds. The open rivers made it so that beavers could no longer survive in those rivers, so they would not dam them to make ponds and lakes where birds, fish and frogs could live.

However, elk populations continued to rise (and eventually they too would have died out from over grazing), diseases became more prevalent in the animals and deer, hog and coyotes are more adaptable and easily move into urban areas more easily causing serious destruction on a scale far worse than wolves ever did to both wild environments and urban ones. The ecosystem was LITTERALLY collapsing. In another hundred years it would be dead.

The reintroduction of the wolves was pushed for by ecologists who had this crazy idea that bringing in an apex predator could help control the herds. People HATED it but they did it anyhow. It cut most of these populations down substantially. Suddenly the trees, shrubs and bushes started growing back. The stream banks stopped eroding and the trees were growing by the rivers again. Beavers built dams, reeds and grasses grew again and songbirds, herons, fish and frogs all returned at record rates. All by bringing back the apex predator for the area. Yellowstone is now thriving and beautiful and people love it because of that.

Gosh, this is like third grade circle of life food chain ecology stuff. And you claim to know ANYTHING about wolves? You don't even know what roll they play in an ecosystem, or anything about the very restoration projects you are complaining about... But you hate wolves so very, very much!

Like I said. People in Africa manage to protect their herds from things far worse than wolves on far less money. They don't hate their predators... They're still connected to the land enough to know that the lions, cheetah and other megafauna are important even if they don't like them. A lion released from a preserve can kill a dozen mule belonging to one village and yet the villagers don't just go kill the lion. They talk with scientists and government officials and work out a program for management of the animals.
But in America we can't even handle a few wolves running around even with all our resources and funding. Shame.

Most of the wolf problems are not going to happen around where most people live.

Problems will happen on range land or large parcels where there is no way to fence a wolf / coyote / cougar / bear / etc. away from your livestock. One more time, NO WAY to fence them out.

It is us few living and raising livestock WAY out in the boonies where wolves actually are that have any issues with them.

Yes there is:
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?...8#.UuG0oSTTlmA

And again...I do live way out and do have stock and have had wolves and grizzlies here on my land and have had no problems with them. LGD's, fencing, and shelter have worked perfectly.

My DD who lives a mile from us lost 2 dogs to cougars--verified by state fish and wildlife-- in three days. The dogs were both outside with the kids playing in the trees and disappeared. They (the state) found the remains of the dogs on a neighbors property, in an abandoned car. The cougar was teaching her cubs to hunt. One of the dogs was a Great Pyrenees, the other a Chow mix. Both dogs normally stayed with the kids but the kids didn't hear anything.

There is way too much information called facts in this thread as well as twisting what people have said. In my opinion it serves no useful purpose.

Cougars are far scarier to me than wolves. One of my neighbors lost a stallion to a cougar several years ago. If I had one hanging around here, I would not have a problem with eliminating it.

I understand your passion but I also think that there needs to be middle ground. If the government wants to keep wolves protected, there needs to be compensation for those who's ability to make a living are impacted by any protected species and while fencing or planting trees might work for a small homestead, it's sure not going to work on sections of land. The cost of installing a proper game fence is staggering and most ranchers simply don't make enough money to pay for that kind of fencing.

Thank you Angie 2 for editing out my harmless assessment of this thread, but leaving in the pop up advertisement link for " transparent bikinis " that showed up a post or two below mine!

Sometimes this place is beyond ridiculous.

__________________
Zone 7B / 8A

Pretty sure Angie has no control over what ads show up. What does seem silly though, are the folks who drop into a heated thread juuuust long enough to offer up some great pearl of wisdom that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, but is some attempt to show that they are above the fray while they are, of course jumping right into it in their own passive aggressive way.

Site owners and admin try pretty hard to cull ads that are not considered suitable but once in a while, the odd one gets through.

Here you can't shoot a grizz unless it's coming after a human. If it's after your prize bull or mare, you're out of luck. I can see having a problem with that.

Like mountain lions and snakes, there is no winning this argument. Many people seem to have an over-riding fear fueling a hatred for wolves. Maybe it goes back to the Big Bad Wolf and Little Red Riding Hood and other tails in childhood. And nothing is going to change those peoples' minds, ever. And that especially includes scientific data.