# Wolves May Be Removed From Endangered Status Soon



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

*http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsst...0071123/47465e50_3ca6_15526200711231067444973*


----------



## HazyDay (Feb 20, 2007)

ya!! Kill em all! I hate wolves and other big sruffy rats!!


----------



## Beef11 (Feb 2, 2006)

Wolves were removed from the west for a reason. These reasons are becoming very evident now with the reintroduction project. Sometimes we have to do something very stupid to remember why we did what we did in the first place.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I'd like to have deer and moose hunted to extinction. They keep taking out my wire fences and cause me a great deal of money and inconvenience. 
Keep the wolves and eradicate the deer!


----------



## cowgirlone (May 9, 2002)

I say get rid of mice!


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

There is about one wolf for each 150,000 people in the 48 states, so which critter do you think is too numerous and needs to have its numbers culled?

Its curious to me that several locations in Europe, Italy and Croatia come to mind, a fairly crowded with people place, still have viable wild populations of grey wolves and brown bears and what? The 20 million acres of public land around Yellowstone (larger than many European countries), the Great Idaho wilderness areas, Northeatern Oregon for that matter or the Glacier National Park and surrounding wilderness areas are not large enough for a pitifully small number of wolves and grizzlies?

I guess we are all trappped in a struggle to the death and the last one standing wins.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

A wolf pack's territory extends right across the small river where I live. We have horses and sheep and the wolves never bother anything. I love to hear them on nights when they are close by. I think it's stupid to eradicate the top end predators like grizzly, cougar and wolves. They are here for a reason and when they are on public lands, the public should decide what happens to them. If I were running my sheep and horses across the river in Natl Forest and lost an animal to wolves, I'd have a hard time expecting to be able to kill all the wolves because my animals were in their territory.
BTW, I'm a conservative and I find my position entirely in keeping with what conservatism is. Conserving what God gave us in nature is the right thing to do. Killing off wildlife to benefit the beef industry or hunting outfitters....not so much.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

wolves don't respect property lines and will take down livestock, come into your yard and eat your dog and in both cases there absolutely NOTHING you can legally do to protect them and if you get caught protecting what's YOURS on YOUR property you will lose that property while you do a stretch in prison (at least in the lower 48 where canadian greys have been introduced. THAT is the issue most people have w/ them. Another issue is that a small but viable population of rocky mountain timberwolves (native to the area) was destroyed by the larger introduced NON NATIVE canadian greys. They are also devastating the ungulate herds which were brought back by sound MANAGEMENT funded by hunters (who were an important part of the process). While the wolves are at TRIPLE the carrying capacity and NO Management is permitted. (california's lion problem is a perfect example of non management) Only the fed is allowed to deal w/ problem animals even a state management agent that kills a problem animal is subject to federal prosecution.
most people in the "anti-wolf" crowd don't mind the wolves, they just want them RESPONSIBLY MANAGED.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Pops2 said:


> wolves don't respect property lines and will take down livestock, come into your yard and eat your dog and in both cases there absolutely NOTHING you can legally do to protect them and if you get caught protecting what's YOURS on YOUR property you will lose that property while you do a stretch in prison (at least in the lower 48 where canadian greys have been introduced. THAT is the issue most people have w/ them. Another issue is that a small but viable population of rocky mountain timberwolves (native to the area) was destroyed by the larger introduced NON NATIVE canadian greys. They are also devastating the ungulate herds which were brought back by sound MANAGEMENT funded by hunters (who were an important part of the process). While the wolves are at TRIPLE the carrying capacity and NO Management is permitted. (california's lion problem is a perfect example of non management) Only the fed is allowed to deal w/ problem animals even a state management agent that kills a problem animal is subject to federal prosecution.
> most people in the "anti-wolf" crowd don't mind the wolves, they just want them RESPONSIBLY MANAGED.


So how come they aren't coming into my yard and killing my Great Pyrenees, sheep and horses? They are close enought that we hear them at night.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

When individual wolves (and grizzlies) stray onto private land, the landowner should be allowed to shoot them if it is considered necassary but there is no need for an eradication or reduction program on public lands.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Lisa 
just because you hear them doesn't mean they are actually that close, the howls carry for 2-3 miles, farther w/ good conditions. you may have gotten lucky and something occurred to make them avoid humans but even then you will likely see them AFTER they have destroyed the local game herds. hopefully before that happens they will be properly managed and their numbers brought back down to the carrying capacity of the area.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> Lisa
> just because you hear them doesn't mean they are actually that close, the howls carry for 2-3 miles, farther w/ good conditions. you may have gotten lucky and something occurred to make them avoid humans but even then you will likely see them AFTER they have destroyed the local game herds. hopefully before that happens they will be properly managed and their numbers brought back down to the carrying capacity of the area.


Now, you are giving the government managers credit for being able to do something.

Wolves will not completely wipe-out local gameherds and they do tend to regulate their own numbers. In truly wild areas the game animals and the wolves will achieve some sort of equilibrium and the wolves that stray onto private ranches getting shot may teach the survivors to stay away from such places. As well, wolves wandering around roadways will suffer mortality from vehicle hits. The survivors will learn to stay in the back-country.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I actually saw one cross the river in front of my cabin 4 years ago. It was confirmed to be a lone collared female by F&G. My nearest neighbor, a wildlife photographer has also seen them. Certainly they can hear my Pyrenees barking at them when they howl and they've never come to kill them.
Do you live in wolf country Pops2?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

hillsidedigger
when i said properly managed, i meant responsibility being handed over to the individual states. in truly wild areas the "equilibrium' is cyclic highs & crashes in the populations of predator & prey. in unmanaged areas both will literally breed & eat themselves into destruction. the few survivors and immigrants from nearby managed areas will repopulate & start the cycle over again. disease & starvation, while natural, are not very humane means of death. and while prey species generally won't or can't immigrate long distances for new browsing, most predator species have no such issue.
Lisa
as a matter of fact i do live in wolf country but i don't have the issues you have in your part of the country. ours are a native species (red wolf, avg size 35-55# & top s of 70#) and the population's official status is "experimental." so farmers can legally protect their property and so can the guy whose family dog gets attacked in the front yard. most incidental kills come from confrontations between bear & deer hounds and reds "defending" their territory. and because the population is experimental an unintentional kill (by say a nonresident hunter thinking they are coyotes) doesn't result in legal penalties that could force a person into bankruptcy. the population is reasonably static because it is managed by incidental kills, farmer removal of problem animals & govt shooters. because the wolves are managed the deer herd is healthy, coyotes are nonexistant in the area & fox are abundant (unlike coyote infested areas). also because the wolves are managed most urban & suburban residents are unaware they exist.


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

In Wisconsin, 52% of the wolves diet are deer with beaver and hare after that. Predation complaints are about half livestock and half dogs. You can find all the facts at:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/factsheets/mammals/wolf.htm

As a side note, my father took part in the final eradication wolf hunt in SW Wisconsin in the 1930s.

Martin


----------



## Reptyle (Jul 28, 2005)

All these years have passed and still the same narrow-minded mentality...We still believe we're entitled to more than our fair share of the world.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

If man will stop trying to interfere wild animal numbers will settle out. The number of predators will adjust to the number of prey animals. The number of prey animals will adjust to the number of predators. Always have and always will. Man comes into the equation and wants some animal more than it wants other species. He destroys all animals who feed on his chosen animal. In time his chosen animal is out of control.
When feed is good the number of prey animals will grow, when the number of prey animals grow the number of predators grow. Same when food is not so good, both decline. When man decides to control mother nature we see problems.


----------



## bumpus (Jul 30, 2003)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> I actually saw one cross the river in front of my cabin 4 years ago. It was confirmed to be a lone collared female by F&G. My nearest neighbor, a wildlife photographer has also seen them. Certainly they can hear my Pyrenees barking at them when they howl and they've never come to kill them.
> Do you live in wolf country Pops2?


Those wolves have a lot of things to eat right now but that will run short as the packs grow.

As time goes on the wolves will multiply and spread out into more acres, and they will kill your dogs, and livestock including your horses, unless someone kills them.

Time is running out and it will happen quicker as days go by.

Many pups will be born next spring and they want to eat.

bumpus
.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

pancho
like i just said to hillside digger, "natural balance" is a myth. the natural order is cycles of population highs & crashes. in purely wild areas predators crash because the prey crashes and the neighboring predators are at a different point in the cycle give them nowhere to immigrate. the yellowstone population of canadian greys don't have that issue they can immigrate any where they want because they are completely protected. I have personally seen a young adult canadian grey on antelope island in the great salt lake in utah, hundreds of miles from where the fed says they are supposed to be.
"balance" can only achieved by human interference, more liberal limits as populations climb and restricted limits when they finally crash. 
eradication of the competition isn't a strictly human trait, wolves go out of their way to eliminate coyotes & coyotes do the same to foxes.
basically what we're talking about is disney wildlife management versus real wildlife management.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> pancho
> like i just said to hillside digger, "natural balance" is a myth. the natural order is cycles of population highs & crashes. in purely wild areas predators crash because the prey crashes and the neighboring predators are at a different point in the cycle give them nowhere to immigrate. the yellowstone population of canadian greys don't have that issue they can immigrate any where they want because they are completely protected. I have personally seen a young adult canadian grey on antelope island in the great salt lake in utah, hundreds of miles from where the fed says they are supposed to be.
> "balance" can only achieved by human interference, more liberal limits as populations climb and restricted limits when they finally crash.
> eradication of the competition isn't a strictly human trait, wolves go out of their way to eliminate coyotes & coyotes do the same to foxes.
> basically what we're talking about is disney wildlife management versus real wildlife management.


I would say the myth is it takes humans to balance the numbers of any species. There was a balance long before humans ever learned to walk on their two back feet. Even the govt. will admit wildlife management does not work. It will cause an increase in the species of animal that happens to be the most popular at the time. All it takes is destroying the predators that prey on that species. It can even be used as a gift to hunters so that even the most inexperienced hunter can find an animal to shoot. 
Look at just about every species that has become extinct. Not many can be blamed on predators. Just about every one can be blamed on humans.

People have a different way of looking at wildlife. The farmer in Iowa has a complete different outlook on the number of pheaseants and foxes than the auto worker in Detroit. The housewife in Santa Barbara has a much different outlook on the numbers of coyotes than the farmer.

No ecosystem functions in isolation. Each constantly interacts with other ecosystems. When one part of the ecosystem is removed it will effect the other. If left to mother nature they will co-exist. If left to man to manage there will be species that become extinct so people will have greater access to other species.

What is needed is more human management and less wildlife management. A quote from the Dept of Wildlife explains it very well. "There is a typical touch of human aggorance and evasion in this cant of mind that tells us we are managing animals, when what we should really be doing is trying to manage ourselves."


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

bumpus said:


> Those wolves have a lot of things to eat right now but that will run short as the packs grow.
> 
> As time goes on the wolves will multiply and spread out into more acres, and they will kill your dogs, and livestock including your horses, unless someone kills them.
> 
> ...


I doubt it Bumpus. So your solution is to just kill 'em all now? 
And the grizzlies too?


----------



## bumpus (Jul 30, 2003)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> I doubt it Bumpus. So your solution is to just kill 'em all now?
> And the grizzlies too?


Bumpus did not say that, but time will tell and then you can talk about it later when they become overpopulated in your area.


They kill dogs and any livestock to eat and live including people.

But people do not believe it until they have already killed, and then they wake up sometimes.

I would kill them ( wolves and griz ) before they distroyed any of my property.

Your dogs won't stand a chance against a pack of hungry wolves.

That is why people killed them out of the country years ago, because they do not live well with man.

bumpus
.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Years ago people killed wolves and bears because they were competition for the same game animals. Just like the coyote will kill a fox, just like a wolf will kill a coyote, and just like a grizzly will kill a single wolf. Sometimes they killed for food.
Check into the record books, deer kill a lot more people than both wolves and bears together. The dog kills a lot more people than either also.

Now days most of those who complain about wolves do so because they think they will be competition for game animals they hunt for sport. 

Although the common dog will not last long against a wolf I have seen a couple of matches between dog and wolf and the wolves lost both times.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

pancho said:


> Even the govt. will admit wildlife management does not work.


On the contrary, regulated seasons, limits, method of take and predator reduction (by state agencies) were the primary factors in the recovery of big game herds & waterfowl flocks that were nearly destroyed by UNREGULATED market hunting. Without this recovery there would have been no prey base to support the introduction of canadian grey wolves in the first place. Ducks Unlimited had great success in the 90s w/ predator control helping declining duck numbers rebound in spite of losses in nesting grounds.


pancho said:


> It will cause an increase in the species of animal that happens to be the most popular at the time. All it takes is destroying the predators that prey on that species.


Valid point, for example the whitetail deer. OTH w/o the MANAGED recovery of the whitetail there could have been no reintroduction & growth of the red wolf or the rebound of the eastern cougar.


pancho said:


> It can even be used as a gift to hunters so that even the most inexperienced hunter can find an animal to shoot.


We can't all be as gifted as you, the rest of us will have to learn to hunt from hunting something that is actually there.


pancho said:


> Look at just about every species that has become extinct... Just about every one can be blamed on humans.


WRONG, 99% of extinct species went extinct before man ever walked upright. Of the extinctions man is responsible for most come from indirect action like clearing & draining swamps for farmland or development or introduction of more competitive nonnative species, for example the larger, more prolific & more aggressive CANADIAN grey wolf eradicated the remenant population of the smaller rocky mountain timberwolf in yellowstone. Of the species man hunted to extintion ALL were from UNREGULATED subsistance (mammoths), predation (carolina parakeet) or market hunting (passenger pigeon). MANAGED (sport) hunting has never extincted a species. And it has provided over 95% of the funding that recovered threatened species, either directly (from license sales & charity) or indirectly (pittman-roberts taxes).



panch said:


> People have a different way of looking at wildlife. The farmer in Iowa has a complete different outlook on the number of pheaseants and foxes than the auto worker in Detroit. The housewife in Santa Barbara has a much different outlook on the numbers of coyotes than the farmer.


Unfortunately the autoworker & the housewife are usually educated at the walt disney school of wildlife management and combine politically to out vote the farmer. Now because of the damage done by the protected & overpopulated coyotes, the farmer can no longer make money from the pheasant hunters to pay his rising property taxes and so has to sell to a developer or agro corporation. Either one will destroy the coyotes by damaging the habitat in such a way that it will no longer support any prey base and forcing them to immigrate to an area where the gov most pay someone to shoot them or where they aren't protected.



pancho said:


> No ecosystem functions in isolation. Each constantly interacts with other ecosystems. When one part of the ecosystem is removed it will effect the other. If left to mother nature they will co-exist. If left to man to manage there will be species that become extinct so people will have greater access to other species.


Once again, subsistance & commercially driven actions are responsible for man caused extinctions NOT managed sport hunting. The hands off approach actually would result in smaller populations of most animals since old growth forest has an extremely low carrying capacity and some species simply can't exist w/o destruction of old growth. OTH the regrowth in selected clearcuts
(another wildlife management tool) provides food and cover for about 10X as many species as old growth and consumes about 100X as much CO2 (a "greenhouse gas").


pancho said:


> What is needed is more human management


I absolutely agree. When developers are building at 3X the population growth, there is something wrong. There is also something wrong w/ people who never set foot in the wild and don't fund it's continued existence dictating in ignorance to those that live there and provide for its existence on how it will be managed.


----------



## paulaswolfpack (May 22, 2006)

I think that the coyotes should all be killed off or at least most of them they do more damage then the wolves. For the most part wolves are afraid of humans more than coyotes.,Paula
And besides the wolf has a much more sweeter song.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

paulaswolfpack said:


> I think that the coyotes should all be killed off or at least most of them they do more damage then the wolves. For the most part wolves are afraid of humans more than coyotes.,Paula
> And besides the wolf has a much more sweeter song.


Killing off all of the coyotes has been tried before. Even the govt. got into the coyote killing business. You can see the results. All it did was scatter the coyote into areas they did not live before. Also made them larger, more aggressive, and more intelligent. Probably a better idea to just leave them alone. Some of the ways people tried to kill all of them or control them was by fencing, traps, bounties, aerial hunting, and poisoning. From the years 1937 to 1970 the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife killed over 2,753,000 coyotes. This did not count the numbers killed by hunters.
During this time predation by coyotes actually increased and the numbers of coyotes increased.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

With 150 million more people (plus their dogs and cats) predicted to reside in America in just 43 years (2050) there will be very little wildlife of any kind left anywhere in the 48 states outside the few large wilderness areas and not many there. Add up the numbers of all the large predators and large omnivores in America and I doubt the total is would even be a one million.

I know, some of you will say 'But whitetail deer, coyotes, squirrels, rabbits and some gamebirds prosper around people' but only around a limited number of people. If nothing else a 50% increase in motor vehicle traffic in this country will take a further toll on wildlife. Plus, the common mentality (at least one one vocal segment) here at HT is we just need to eliminate public conservation lands, seek and develop energy resources everywhere possible, clear and plow more land (put it into production), grow more cattle, pigs and goats, allow ATV and snowmobile use on most all public lands, build more roads, more houses, buildings, powerplants, factories, shopping centers, etc. which to me is some of the worst things that could happen.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

http://freedom.org/news/200712/17/jan.phtml

Even the 2+ million acres of wildlands in SW Florida is not enough to ensure the survival of a few dozen 'florida panthers'.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Pancho
where are you getting this junk? the coyotes initially expanded out of the southwestern deserts & praries because of the reckless eradication of the wolf (for purely commercial reasons not for sport). when the big game populations recovered (especially deer) and the coyotes became the dominant predator, they grew to their maximum potential, which coincidentally is the same size range (35-75#) as the red wolf & grey wolf subspecies that depended primarily on deer as a prey base. in the southwest, where their lifestyle & prey base never underwent a significant change they remain small (25-40#). they were already smarter than wolves in order to survive in their midst, but persecution definitely increased their wariness. the poisoning was actually the very effective at eliminating localized popultaions but was discontinued primarily because of the side effect it had on endangered populations of raptors & other non target species.

Hillsidedigger
your arguement concerning population growth & development is the most accurate, intelligent & lucid position you have put forth in any thread on this general subject. I agree w/ you 100%.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> Pancho
> where are you getting this junk? the coyotes initially expanded out of the southwestern deserts & praries because of the reckless eradication of the wolf (for purely commercial reasons not for sport). when the big game populations recovered (especially deer) and the coyotes became the dominant predator, they grew to their maximum potential, which coincidentally is the same size range (35-75#) as the red wolf & grey wolf subspecies that depended primarily on deer as a prey base. in the southwest, where their lifestyle & prey base never underwent a significant change they remain small (25-40#). they were already smarter than wolves in order to survive in their midst, but persecution definitely increased their wariness. the poisoning was actually the very effective at eliminating localized popultaions but was discontinued primarily because of the side effect it had on endangered populations of raptors & other non target species.
> 
> Hillsidedigger
> your arguement concerning population growth & development is the most accurate, intelligent & lucid position you have put forth in any thread on this general subject. I agree w/ you 100%.



I got this junk from a book called Wildlife and America. It is put out by The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Forest Service, The Council on Environmental Quality, and The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Try reading it sometimes, it will give you a little more knowledge about wildlife and the history since Europeans first landed in the new world. Red wolves and grey wolves were poisoned at the same time as the coyote but their numbers were a lot less. Also poisoned were bears, bobcats, and lions. If you would like I also have the numbers of each poisoned each year. 

Some more information on coyotes. According to DNA studies done by Dr. Robert Chambers, professor at the State University of New York's College of Enviromental Science and Forestry who specializes in the eastern coyote, about 20% of the coyotes has wolf measurable amounts of wolf DNA, the majority being red wolf. About 5% had measurable amounts of dog DNA, the coy/dog is more of a myth that reality.


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

Maybe the .gov will pay us to re-eradicate them!


----------



## Paquebot (May 10, 2002)

Only one wolf was reported shot in Wisconsin's recent deer season compared to 9 the year before. Genetic testing showed that the latest was a wolf-dog hybrid.

Martin


----------

