Wolves, home intruders and surveillance oh my!
 

Hi all :) I haven't been on in a while, sorry. I get on a forum roll for a while then disappear for a while....

Anyway, thought I'd share some excitement. We've had three large wolves hanging out near our house. Had the tracks confirmed by a forest service guy. I don't know how large the wolves are - but the tracks are 5.5" long and over twice as deep as the tracks of my 65 lb dog. Wolf tracks usually run 4-5.75" so it looks like the wolves must be really big. The forest service guy says the woods are full of them - there are so many around that he seems bored of the subject. They didn't just pass through - they've been hanging around.

The wolf problem has gone beyond being fun and is getting scary for a lot of people. I'm not scared, just a little annoyed and inconvenienced. It stinks, not being able to go for a walk without a gun. It's annoying listening to people on TV and in the newspapers etc. voicing their opinions stating wolves are scared of people, etc. etc. They aren't. People who have never been in an area that's overrun with them believe what they want to believe. The wolves have been going right into a small town nearby - walking around on the sidewalks. Not too long ago a 140 lb wolf was hit by a car in city limits of a larger city/town nearby - right near the hospital in a busy area. I have seen many of them from my car. I drive about 120 miles per day for my job, mostly in rural/remote areas. I once got within 10 feet of one in my car and pulled over and we had a long stare down. He had a collar on and wasn't the least bit afraid. (edited to add: a radio tracking collar). In that same area a wolf chased my coworker's husband up a ladder. A child in another town nearby was treed by a wolf. Many many dogs have been killed by them. I think the scariest story I've heard so far came from one of my patients' daughters. She moved up here from a city somewhere to take care of her elderly father. She was out walking her black lab on their property and he suddenly started whining then laid down belly up and urinated all over himself. She looked up and saw 5 wolves trotting close by them in single file, looking at them. The wolves started to circle around behind them and she felt like they were getting ready to attack. Fortunately her husband came along in the truck right then and she was able to jump in.

A camp nearby was broken into recently - a gun and some other things were stolen. I saw the game cam pictures and they're very blurry but we have a strong suspicion it was our neighbor and her boyfriend who broke in. An old man who lives near here had somebody walk right into his house while he was sleeping and steal money. . . .

So anyway. I know all of this sounds very negative but it's not, really - just a challenge to overcome and an excuse to buy a good surveillance system. Surveillance systems have really come down in price and I'm so excited to get it installed. I'm trying to decide on camera placements (hubby is letting me decide! Yay!!). We're starting with 8 cameras and can have up to 16. Since it's costing us some $, we want to actually get some enjoyment out of the system in addition to protecting our goats, dogs, and home and I'm coming up with ideas. We'll position the cameras to capture as much nature and wildlife as possible while also monitoring all entries and exits, and our goat barn. I'm even thinking about placing some wind/water features in the cameras' areas, planting deer-resistant plants etc. We're planning to keep the TVs tuned into the cameras whenever we're home. The cameras have pretty good night vision and we're even going to get some audio set up, and we'll be able to watch and listen from our bedroom or from downstairs and even from our smart phones if we choose to have the surveillance online....that's something we're debating, due to privacy issues.

I'm thinking we'll point one of the cameras at the goats and that way we can see when they alert and then hopefully we'll have a camera pointed whichever direction they happen to be looking so we can see what they're looking at. I figure the goats will be even more useful than the motion detecting because they will sense something long before a motion detector will go off, and maybe we'll get some pics of the wolves or whatever. The goats will be kidding soon, and the deer will be having their fawns. We live in an area they are calling a deer "pod"? I think "pod" is the word they're using. Anyway - it's like a little microclimate where the deer like to congregate. So between the fawns being born and the goats kidding I think there are going to be a lot of smells drawing the wolves in.

Maybe we can trap some of the wolves and send them to California, send some to live in central park - give them as gifts to all the people who love them so much. Out of the goodness of our hearts, of course. Since they fought so hard to save them they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

If the animal had a collar on it what makes you think it was a wolf and not just a dog?

:) Because it was one of those big radio collars that the forest service puts on the wolves to track them. Sorry - should have been more clear.

We have too many deer here. Send some down our way.

You got it!

You just send the deer my way.

I'd be glad to. I have to put up an expensive fence to keep them out of my garden.

Sounds like you need a couple of LGDs - serious ones bred to work! And you certainly need more than one. You might want to get on the LGD yahoo group - lots of good info there, and sources of dogs.

And elk where I used to live! They decimated my fruit trees. Wolves are their only natural predators.

Well, like, can't we all just co-exist? They don't eat that much and their poop no doubt builds up the soil!!

Just kidding.

I have only ever seen one wolf in the wild here years ago.
I do understand how a lot of them would not be good to have.
I really like our coyotes here.
When they come they eat the rabbits.
When the rabbits are scarce the coyotes go where there are more rabbits them the few left here do what bunnies do best and the coyotes come back.
I have been here since I built this house in 1977 and I have decided I like the coyotes better that rabbits. The coyotes eat rabbits but the rabbits want to eat our garden.

I agree with you farmergirl about the wolf issue. Everyone is always like it's their native habitat and they were there first so they have priority. Well wolves were once across the entire North America. Send them to every suburb where there is a deer, feral cat and abandoned dog issue and let them have it. The only reason wolves were elusive of people was because they were hunted for years. Give a few generations of them and let the imprinted occur where they do not need to fear humans and see what happens.

If people think they are going to continue to stay in rural areas they are gravely mistaken. Subordinate males and females can only breed if they venture off and start a new pack so without any control measures they'll continue to spread.

I'm completely for having wolves to some degree but when a medium sized pack has to make a large kill every 3 days in order to support itself it doesn't take long for farm animals to become the primary target after they diminish the deer herd. Like others have said it's all about balance but when you put livestock into the equation there's no longer a checks and balance because adequate food sources are always available.

Yep as Super55 said - any animal that is constantly hunted will be afraid of humans.

And while you wouldn't expect wildlife to live in the big towns, or city - they do. They spread out from their territory - and the ones who end up in the big towns or cities find places to hide. Once there, after a few generations are born and live there - they become accustomed to city life - and take advantage. Dumpsters, garbage left out for the garbage man, and small pets make for an easy buffet.

And since most large towns and cities don't allow firearms to be discharged within their limits - the biggest danger for them are vehicles.

Nature - where you acclimate to the change and your environment, or you become extinct.

I have no problem letting our dogs drive off the coyotes but wolves are absolutely vicious to dogs and a 150 lb dog is nowhere near a match for a wolf. I guess they killed an Anatolian shepherd up here not long ago. I suppose if we had enough of them they might make a difference.

I love wildlife as much as the next person, and wolf packs in the wild are beautiful. I love the sound of their howling. In fact a couple of years ago I was sitting on my porch playing the bass clarinet and every time I hit a certain note a wolf would howl. It was beautiful but I stopped because I didn't want to draw it in. Their behavior changes a lot when they come into contact with humans and like Super55 and Michael W Smith are saying - if we can't do anything to scare them they're not going to be scared of us. They are very bold animals. Where did this myth about them being timid even come from, and what gives people the right to accuse every person who's been confronted by a wolf of lying?

Two or three years ago I started seeing wolf tracks on my favorite cross country ski trail. I told myself they were most likely really just large dog tracks and continued to ski there. Then, just before dawn, on my way home from a 12-hr shift I saw a small wolf crossing the road near the trail. I saw it crossing the road in the same spot a few more times over the next few weeks, but kept skiing on the trail anyway. It was just a small one, barely bigger than a coyote. Finally,a forest service officer was treed by a pack of wolves in the same area and I said "I'm not skiing alone here anymore - what if I got hurt and was laying on the ground injured? Too much temptation for a wolf pack." So - I gave up skiing there because I don't have anybody to ski with. Everybody ridiculed that forest service officer, accused him of lying, made fun of him on the radio etc. etc. I don't know if he's still working for the forest service or not.

Some have said the only wolves that aren't afraid of humans are the ones that have been made unafraid because of humans feeding them in national parks etc. That's total baloney. Wolves are not naturally afraid of people. The only wolves who ARE afraid of humans are the ones who have been conditioned to be afraid of us. Those that haven't been in contact with humans are leery and approach slowly and get more and more bold over time when nothing scary happens to them as a result of getting close. Lately I've been thinking shooting them with paint balls would be a good idea - and the paint should be permanent. Any wolf who has two or more paintball marks on it should be terminated because it has proven it isn't afraid of humans.

The "it's their native habitat" claim is no excuse for not controlling their population. This entire continent was their native habitat - why should we in this one area have to carry such a huge wolf population just because the rest of the country has a low wolf population? The people up here are really tough people and spend a lot of time outdoors and enjoy nature just as much as people anywhere else in this country, more than most. People in California sitting in their fancy houses in town where they can get Starbucks every morning etc. have no right judging whether or not we are telling the truth. They say we are lying when we describe actual wolf behavior, because some book or magazine they read somewhere says wolves are not afraid of humans and if it's in their stupid book it must be so. That's just like people constantly claiming bald eagles don't eat carrion because their biology book says they don't. Well - tell that to the bald eagles all over the road kill LOL

Our deer herd is way down. What's going to happen when the deer herd can no longer sustain the wolf population? They're already going after the livestock - stealing calves as they're being born. They don't even wait until the calves are all the way out before they attack, pulling them the rest of the way out of their mothers and eating them. Now the law has changed and we're not allowed to shoot a wolf even if it's eating one of our animals - we are only allowed to kill them if they're directly attacking a human being. Well, it's a little late by then. Hard to get an accurate shot off when you're being attacked by a wolf, I imagine.

AND (sorry, on my soap box big time now) did you know what the requirements are for a wolf attack on a human to be officially considered a "reported wolf attack on a human?" It's INSANE. It's so hard to meet the requirements that people can truthfully say "there are no reported wolf attacks on humans" although there have been many attacks. It's all politics.

I don't know why I'm droning on about it so much - I guess I have too much time on my hands. I'm actually hoping I'll get to see these three on our cameras before somebody SSS's them. I'm just annoyed about having to carry a gun when I walk, and if that's all I have to complain about then I guess life is pretty good.

Yes FFFarmergirl
If I was where you are I would go buy a 357 magnum like the one I got to shoot years ago that belonged to a friend.
First time with any revolver in my hands and I put six rounds in a wooden pallet target that I covered with a fifty cent coin. That was at 185 feet.
The friend that owned the gun out of six rounds only hit the large pallet twice and the rounds were no place near the X on the paper plate. One of his rounds actually kissed an edge of the plate and the other one kissed the edge of the pallet. The rest were in the dirt on the hillside.
His wife uses that gun now.

Won't top a end predator population rise and fall with it's prey population? More or less anyway? There is a natural pattern to all this. When you take an animal out is when another species can go unchecked (usually a prey species). For instance, I'm pretty sure that populations of fox and rabbits rise and fall in a pattern together. Seems to me nature has a balance that it will find if we don't mess too much with it. The predator population in my area is not enough to check the deer population. We've done something over time to create this new system by changing the balance.

You are correct that in a normal situation, predators and prey will find a balance, and will reach an equilibrium (Lotka-Volterra equation.) However, wolves are a bit of a special case, because we do not want them to reach an equilibrium. The major problem is that wolves can and often do consider most anything to be prey. This ranges from their natural prey animals; deer, rabbits, coyotes, mice, and pretty much everything in between, to things that we would rather that they didn't try to eat; cattle, chickens, guard dogs, horses, cats, people, etc.

So while wolves can be pretty and can have a beneficial impact on the environment, the crux of the relationship comes down to who is the top species, humans or wolves. If wolves are on top, they will prey on anything they please, causing damage to human concerns, and also killing humans directly. These types of actions are well documented, both in modern times and in the past, and can be cited as the reason that wolves are hated and feared by those that must live near them.

And yet... the city dwellers somehow think they are romantic creatures that deserve our protection. Let the city folk endure a wolf winter, and I suspect that this infatuation with the wolves will die out.

Loki

I am not a city dweller thankfully. I think it would be scary to meet a wolf or pack, however it's also scary to meet a bear or a mountain lion and we have to take care to be aware of them and not surprise them. When we had chickens in Maine we lost some. We lost cats too. The predators there were around (not wolves, although we saw one once). I figured there would be some loss and I needed to be smarter than them.

I love the creation God gave us to live in so I lean toward letting it be as close to nature as possible.

If the prey population falls the predator population can only fall in one of two ways: starvation or becoming prey themselves. In the past when this happened, nature took care of it in the forms of humans defending themselves and their property. Of course then people took it way past the point of defending themselves and actively hunted the wolves with the goal of eliminating them. They almost made them extinct -which is not what we want to have happen again. I don't know anybody who wouldn't want a healthy number of wolf packs to continue to survive in the wild. Hungry wolves are very dangerous animals and laws have been passed preventing us from maintaining the balance. Because we have an overabundance of them here, which has resulted in many wolf-human encounters, a wolf hunt was proposed and was intended to be carefully controlled by the forest service to ensure only the necessary # of wolves was removed every year in order to keep a safe balance. The wolf hunt occurred for one season under close supervision, with only the appropriate # of wolf licenses issued. 23 wolves were removed and it was considered a success. A bunch of people who aren't from around here threw a huge fit and not only managed to get the wolf hunt cancelled but made it illegal to even kill them in defense of our animals. The only possible result of this is a lot of hungry wolves coming into closer even closer contact with humans - and this is already happening.

As far as the bears go - we have bear hunts and that keeps them from getting out of control. We still have a lot of bears here, but I've seen more wolves than bears. I imagine we'll have to deal with this issue with cougars as the cougar population continues to grow.

We used to tell our kids to be noisy in our yard in rural Maine because there were bears all around. Nothing controls the moose population there except hunting. I've had a number of friends hit a moose and one friend die from it over the years. I think a wolf population there would help regulate that issue even better. It is complicated though isn't it?

It's not so dangerous in the south. I never have to watch the roadside for moose.

60 yards and that good of a group, I think I would have gone out for the national pistol team.

Maybe they will get the funding to relocate them or something. I went for a walk after that last message I sent, and saw more fresh tracks but no fresh tracks from the two big ones - only from the smaller one.

fffarmergirl, you asked how the "timid" image became accepted for wolves. Farley Mowat, a biologist, lived near a wolf pack in northern Canada for a while and wrote a book, "Never Cry Wolf", about the experience. He saw a peaceful pack, and the book was made into a movie in the 1980's. It was a compelling story. I saw the movie and then read the book. I completely bought the image, but lately have been hearing many stories like yours and am shifting my thinking. Wolves spread out in the wild and with plenty to eat may truly be peaceful, but wolves mixed into areas where food sources are more limited or rural animals are plentiful and easy targets may have a different personality at the fore front.

I did vote for a wolf hunt bill that was proposed in my state this past fall. Managed hunts can be beneficial in many ways, including to the population of animal being hunted. (My views on hunting have changed with time, too.)
Anyway, that may be where the timid image started.

I think carrying a sidearm preferably 9mm or larger with spare magazines , is sound advice , there are many good , affordable models that are easy to use, easy to carry.

there should be a managed hunting and trapping season , not sure where your at but it definitely helped in Wisconsin , complaints and DNR trapping of problem packs when way down when a DNR set quota was taken the previous 2 years.

unfortunately when the legal system puts the hold on reasonable measures to control the population , the animal must be wasted and that is the real shame.

The wolf population will expand to as high a number as the prey population will support. When the prey population falls, like the winter 2 years ago killed a lot of the deer, the wolf population has to prey on livestock to survive. At that point we have to be able to reduce the wolf population.

The problem is "liberal think", the idea that you can pass laws that impose the will of uninformed people on those that do know what's going on. In this case, the uninformed people have been told that wolves are "endangered" and have to be protected. This is total BS. Wolf populations may be at lower than historical numbers in certain locals but the wolf population is doing very well as a whole. There are hundreds of thousands of them in Canada. The recent decision by a liberal judge that stopped the wolf hunt is an example of this.

The population level of wolves that co-inhabit areas with humans needs to be lower than historical levels to prevent most bad encounters between the two. I do like hearing the wolves howl at night but we need to be able to shoot them if they are preying on livestock.

I suggest we re-introduce them into Central Park. After all, this was originally part of their range, wasn't it?

Keep in mind that OO buck doesn't have any of those pesky rifleing marks that bullets do.

We have large wolf populations here in AK and virtually all of the stray dogs in our town are taken out by these predators. They have also killed some people in the villages nearby. I tend to think a little more holistically about them, even though we can see their dens when we go for walks. We never go out unarmed. Ever. On the other hand, this is just as much their land as it is ours. We fence with electric fence as well as welded wire, have LGDs for our stock, other dogs that will alert us to their presence and a number of lead spitters that will take care of the problem if need be. They are also hunted and trapped routinely which helps keep a moderate fear in them. There needs to be a balance, but you are right, the city folk who make the rules have no idea how dangerous it can be to have them around.

The Wisconsin DNR keeps public records of wolves, including what they have done. The cost has been incredible over the years. Hunting was allowed in Wisconsin for a few years, and a balance was returning. Michigan was soon to follow, but a judge in DC put them back on the endangered species list. Hunts were stopped, and now people can't even use deadly force to defend their pets/animals anymore. It's insane.

Here is a link showing the dog depredations in Wisconsin for 2015.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabi...f/dogdeps.html

If at that time I had the $275 to buy that revolver I might have done just that.
That gun fit me like it was built just for me. The sights were right on and the barrel was long enough to make it work.
I am an open sights shooter.
Put a scope on a rifle you ruin it for me.

All I have now is a Beretta Model 1934 380 pistol.
It is a WW II war relic and up close sure it would be a great self defense weapon. That is if I could get it out of the locked box, unlock the trigger lock, load a clip and put it in the gun in time.

Well that should be as good of evidence as there is.........even if the FS has been known put a collar on a Dog from time to time.

The problem is that there really isn't any difference between a wolf and a lot of Alaskan Huskys.......how could there be with them being bred back to wolves very chance they get?

There is a very reliable LGD which is extremely effective against wolves, infact it is one of the reasons the breed was developed. As I have friends from that region the breed was developed in I have seen videos of them standing up to and taking out a wolf. There are breeders here in the US with good stock. If I were in the market for a LGD that would be my choice. Here is a link to more info about them. http://predator-friendly-ranching.bl...ninac-lgd.html

Those look like something I might want to have!