Posted on 02/07/2004 10:59:48 AM PST by Delphinium
We have already established that wolves are to be managed and kept “in territory” so your scenario of them just “moving on” is not applicable. And your “stomp on them” – “extremely heavy hand” descriptions of what is required is not something I agree with either.
It is not a contradiction. Wolves help create the effect, due to their behavior. They exacerbate the natural cycle. Making management difficult, and possibly politically impossible.
Wolves don't prey on each other, (unless, possibly, they are starving.) They move on to find other sources. The point of "stomping" on the wolves in order to manage them is to never let them get to a point that the food supply drops to a point that they do move on. To keep wolves happy they have to be fed properly. Unhappy wolves are hungry wolves, those are the ones that move to happier locations... like sheep ranches.
I am for happy wolves that stay where we want them.
You said,"And your “stomp on them” – “extremely heavy hand” descriptions of what is required is not something I agree with either." The wolf is not the problem. Also, the problem is not IF wildlife professionals can manage them or not, they can. And I did not say or imply that I want to stomp on them. But understand this, I am accurately describing the result of what professional management will look like. It will look ugly.
You see, the problem is really political, when people see what wolf management looks like, they just won't stand for it. And from that statement of yours, it is clear, you and people like you are the real problem. So here is my bottom line: Until people are educated and ready to practice responsible conservation, then I lean to getting rid of the US population of wolves. That is, until such time that we are ready for it. Your sentiments incline me think, that for now, wolves should remain in Canada and Zoo's.
So what if they are carnivors?
I used to. But not anymore. The truth is that trophy hunting is an effective way to keep animal populations health an growing. Many times the biggest Male game animals, the ones that control the herds. Are not as affective in breeding. They may be the biggest and baddest, but the are beyond their peak performance, so to speak. By removing a" trophy animal," herds break up into smaller units, that are led by animals a the the peak of their performance. Sometimes a trophy animal is edible many times they are stinky old things. As for eating carnivores, why?
By the way, Using Trophy hunting, as a management technique, many countries in Africa have had explosions in their Rhino populations. In these counties, it has also eliminated poaching as a lifestyle.
Not sure what your point is. The phenomenon you describe is typically the result of an above average snowfall over the course of a winter rather than a lack of forage to sustain the herd. It's just harder and more exhaustive for animals to get to the food. Large foraging animals tend to congregate where movement is easier, such as plowed roadways, but it doesn't assure them more forage. The same thing happens in Alaska during winters when above average snows are too deep for the animals to move and restricts their ability to forage. The moose get killed in above average numbers by trains and cars because they won't readily move off the roads or tracks to fight the snow. We typically see buds stripped off saplings by the moose nearer the roadways, but plenty of food left a few hundred yards off the roadways. It's just too much effort for the animals to get to it.
It doesn't matter whether populations grow unchecked, or if they are limited by hunting and wolves, hard winters will kill many even in healthy, sustainable herd populations.
You are probably right that not everyone who is anti-wolf is “extreme right”. But the anti-wolf movement is extreme right. Just as most enviromentalists are “extreme left”, but not all. I don’t know if I agree with you about whether this is a politically driven issue. If you go by the threads I’ve seen here at Free Republic – it is politcally driven – by the far right.
”This issue effects all those people living within states that now how to live and deal with these wolves.”
That’s true. I think that it would have been better to reintroduce the wolves to Yellowstone first. But no one asked me :-)
”The wolves not only are decimating our game herds (that many of us have donated extra time and money to enhance) but also as you pointed out, ranchers as well. This issue reaches far beyond herd deprivation, it reaches into the State's pocket book. These wolves are having a major impact on our economy. “
I don’t see the evidence that game herds have been “decimated”. In fact, Idaho Fish & Game says that they have not been decimated. Now whether it cuts into hunting profits – it probably does. But I think hunting will become harder and take more skill. I’m not one that is especially keen on hunting even though I think it’s ok for people to hunt for food to put on the table.
”If you haven't heard, there are now 3 wolf packs within 30 miles of Boise. Two packs to the North, and one to the South. (Which means that pack has traveled quite a distance from the introduction point.) It also means that it's only a matter of time before the citizens on the outskirts of Boise, Idaho's capitol, will start loosing their own pets to these predators unless they are well protected.”
No I hadn’t heard. Hopefully the authorities will catch them and take them back where they belong or kill them.
”Not to mention that there have been cougar sitings within Boise since Sept. of this year. An explanation of the cougar following the game was given after the last sighting in Jan. which might had been true if not for the Sept. sighting. But the large game herds where not that close to Boise before the heavy snow came. My theory is that the cougar has been displaced by the wolves.
I don’t agree that that cougar are displaced by wolves. In fact cougar benefit from wolf kills that are abandoned – as do fox and eagle and other meat eaters. We had a cougar kill someone’s dog in Salt Lake a month or so ago. And we don’t have any wolves :-)
”My suggestion is that you visit www.natureswolves.com and look at pictures on the site. After doing so, imagine what you might see had a person or a child been the victim.”
I found natureswolves.com to be pretty hysterical, and not necessarily accuarate. For instance here are a couple of quotes:
"“There have been reliable sighting this winter of several packs of 40 and one of 50 in the area west of my Stony River Lodge.”
”Do you know how fantastic a claim that is? :-)
” Two experienced wolves can kill a big bull moose and no moose is a match for an entire pack of wolves.”
That’s just not true. Two wolves would never attempt to take on a moose – one well placed kick could kill a wolf. In fact, a wolf pack is not going to try a big bull moose unless he is weak from exhaustion. They are not going to risk injury if they can help it.
I have a real problem with sites like natureswolves that try to scare people and drum up hysteria. I would much rather see honorable arguments where people raise their genuine concerns – such as money and fear.
But I remain a wolf lover. I think they are beautiful and magnificent animals. And I love dogs, too – who, of course, are descendents of wolves :-)
You may want to research that and see just how ornery mules are. A good kick is deadly to a wolf. And you may not know this but wolves avoid injury. They just don't take unneccessary risks.
You are exactly right. People move farther and farther into the wild and then have a fit that there are "wild animals" there :-) Where do they think the animals are going to go?
Well I for one wasn't, that is untill I read Sunsong's posts. Now I want to see the wolves hunted to the point of extinction. And I bet you know where I'd like all the carcasses to be sent.
To me it is a contradiction. Either you want to claim that wolves destroy everything in site and leave a lifeless desert or wolves are a part of the boucning ball effect in which the number of prey and wolves ebbs and flows. I believe in the natural cycle. I find the claim that wolves kill everything in sight to be patently false.
Wolves don't prey on each other, (unless, possibly, they are starving.)
Wolves kill each other when they are in competition for the same territory.
”They move on to find other sources. The point of "stomping" on the wolves in order to manage them is to never let them get to a point that the food supply drops to a point that they do move on. To keep wolves happy they have to be fed properly. Unhappy wolves are hungry wolves, those are the ones that move to happier locations... like sheep ranches.
I want to see wolves kept in territory, as I have said previously.
”I am for happy wolves that stay where we want them.
I am for happy wolves too. And I repeat one more time, I want to see them kept in territory.
”The wolf is not the problem. Also, the problem is not IF wildlife professionals can manage them or not, they can. And I did not say or imply that I want to stomp on them. But understand this, I am accurately describing the result of what professional management will look like. It will look ugly.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “ugly”. Once wolves are delisted – there will be legalized hunting of wolves. That will reduce their numbers. Is that what you are talking about?
”You see, the problem is really political, when people see what wolf management looks like, they just won't stand for it. And from that statement of yours, it is clear, you and people like you are the real problem.”
In your mind I am “the real problem”. But I don’t agree with you :-) People like me are a real problem for people like you and people like you are a real problem for people like me :-) It’s a two-way street. I do think that the public wants the wolf recovery to succeed and that that means that the wolf haters have a terribly high threshold to overcome in order to exterminate wolves. I suspect that that is why there is so much hyperbole and exageration among the anti-wolf sites and the anti-wolf crowd – they are trying to find some way to create hysteria so that they can change public opinion. That’s how it looks to me right now.
” So here is my bottom line: Until people are educated and ready to practice responsible conservation, then I lean to getting rid of the US population of wolves. That is, until such time that we are ready for it. Your sentiments incline me think, that for now, wolves should remain in Canada and Zoo's.”
Well we don’t agree. And as I say, it looks like the public wants wild wolves – not captured ones in zoos. I like this article :-) :
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.